1956-07-04

[Stage Direction]
Second and final report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Boisvert.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Fulton: 1.	Did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or any other department or agency of the government retain Mr. F. P. Brais, Q.C., to investigate and/or prosecute cases of wrongdoing in connection with the admission of immigrants from Italy or elsewhere?
2.	If so, when was he first retained, and how long did his services continue?
3.	What is the full amount of his daily retainer, and what total has been paid over to him during this period?
4.	What have been the results to date in terms of numbers of (a) prosecutions; (b) convictions; (c) acquittals; (d) discharges from government service, and what were the names and positions of the persons proceeded against or discharged in each case?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first >part of this question is that the services of Hon. F. P. Brais, Q.C., were retained by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) for the purpose of counselling in prosecutions in Montreal in connection with the admission of Italian immigrants to Canada.
The answer to the second part is that the services of Mr. Brais were retained in November, 1954, and are still continuing.
The answer to the third part is that the question of payment of accounts is one which is of special interest to the Minister of Justice, and I imagine also to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). It can be mentioned, however, that no account has been submitted as yet by Mr. Brais and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will know how much is payable to Mr. Brais only after his account has been received and taxed in the Department of Justice.
The answer to the fourth part is that Mr. B. A. Corbo and Mr. M. E. Lattoni were charged and the preliminary hearing was held in Montreal over a period of more than 12 days. The hearing will be resumed in September, 1956, and the department has now completed its case at this hearing.
There was some additional information about this matter given to the committee on estimates which will be found in the minutes of proceedings of the committee for last year.


Mr. Dufresne:: Does the minister mean to say that Mr. Brais has not rendered any account to the department since 1954?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer is that in respect to this matter about which I am answering the question there has been no account received from Mr. Brais.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Thatcher: 1.	During the past fiscal year, what was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government in grants or subsidies to all industries, including agriculture?
2.	What was the amount of each subsidy or grant, and the specific purpose thereof?


FEDERAL LOANS
Mr. Thatcher: 1.	What federal departments, branches, boards and agencies grant loans?
2.	To what particular category of Canadians does each loan money?
3.	How much money was loaned by each such department, branch, board and agency during the past fiscal year?
4.	What was the profit or loss to each of them during the past fiscal year?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters and telegrams since 1st January, 1955, which passed between the Postmaster General and any person or persons regarding the change in the location of the post office at Foxdale, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of a postmaster.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: On resolution 92, the
Department of External Affairs. Shall this resolution carry?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, I should have corrected Hansard, but in fact I did not say "External Affairs" last evening. I said "Secretary of State."
5642	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
407. Departmental administration, $244,775.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find
this vote on page 66 of the blue book of estimates. Shall this item carry?


Mr. Pallell:: The Secretary of State has tabled a report in accordance with the custom, which report is effective March 31,
1955.	Before we get into the estimates, I wonder whether the minister would bring us up to date with the report as of March 31, 1956, so that we may have the current position of the department to deal with.


Mr. Pinard:: I have here the page proofs of the report as of March 31, 1956, but it has not been tabled yet. I cannot possibly give my hon. friend all the information contained in it. It has not been tabled yet.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Why not postpone study
of the estimates until we have the information we need?
Mr. Pallet!: It is rather difficult to deal with a department without having obtained the particular information in respect to each section of it before we come into the house, the only information we have being based on figures in a report over a year old. In the course of the discussion of the estimates, any statements we make may be predicted on this report that is a year old, and anything that is out of line must have the sympathy of the house in that regard. Surely the minister might be able to make at least an oral statement if he is unable to offer a written one, so as to bring us up to date on the general picture of his department before we begin study of the estimates.


Roch Pinard: This is not a department where there can be very serious changes in policy. If there is any information additional to what is contained in the report already tabled that my hon. friend would like to obtain, I would be pleased to give it to him. There is not very much except additional statistics, for instance, in the patent division, how many further applications have been filed and dealt with. It follows the form of the other report, and there is not very much to be added to the report this year except statistics. If there are any that my hon. friend would wish to obtain, I should be very pleased to give them to him.
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder whether the minister can tell me how many companies were incorporated in the period ended March 31,
1956.


Roch Pinard: I can say to my hon. friend that during the fiscal year 1955-56 letters
[Mr. Harris.!

patent were granted incorporating 847 companies under part I and 36 corporations without share capital under part II of the Companies Act.
Mr. Pallet!: The first comment I should like to make is with respect to the matter of company incorporations. For the year ended March 31, 1954, the report indicates there were 840 companies incorporated, for the year ended March 31, 1955 exactly the same number, 840, and this year there are only 847. It seems to me that these figures are out of line with the apparent growth of the country. I think you will find that the number of incorporations under provincial charters has increased considerably each year, and it seems to indicate that there may be something wrong with the policy of the department in regard to the creation of corporations or some fundamental defect that prevents companies from being incorporated under this department.
At the expense of repeating myself, may I say that it is significant that in the last year there has only been an increase of seven companies over the year before in a country that is supposed to be expanding and growing as this country is supposed to be doing. Along the same line, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has adopted any particular policies in this regard. There is one question I should like to ask him. What steps, if any, are taken in his department or are contemplated by the department with respect to companies incorporated under dominion charters to ensure that there can be full participation by Canadians in those companies? Are there any requirements contemplated by the department that will make holdings available to Canadians in any company thus created, or rather is it the case that most of these companies created under his department are wholly owned outside Canada? Are they merely incorporated here with a few nominal Canadian directors, perhaps even a majority of the directors but with the majority of the holdings outside the country?
If that is the case, are any steps being taken by his department to ensure that Canadians will have a full opportunity to participate as shareholders in these companies? A very revealing observation was made in the banking and commerce committee just last week about the nature of the shareholdings in finance companies. It was a most revealing observation in that practically every finance company operating in Canada was shown to be wholly owned or almost wholly owned outside this country. I think there is a responsibility on the

minister's doorstep to take cognizance of this situation and, if he sees fit, to take the necessary steps.
There is another subject I should like to mention that is not exactly related to companies. It has to do with the recognition of Canadians for valuable services to their country in all fields of endeavour. Every country in the world has some method of recognizing contributions to the country through some form or other of honorary award. It is a recognition that does not necessarily involve the expenditure of money but it is a recognition of their service and their value to the country. We have our wartime awards, decorations for bravery and the like.
Now that we hope to encourage development in this country, I think that one way of encouraging it is to take these people who have given of their time, ability and energy and give them some form of recognition. That matter is directly within the minister's department. I leave that suggestion with him for his consideration. It certainly does not involve the expenditure of money but it involves the expenditure of considerable thought on his part. These people are entitled to that recognition. They have served their country well in their particular field and they should have some special recognition. That is the only way, in the long run, in which you are going to get people to expend their energies for service rather than for money, namely to let them know that after a lifetime of devoted duty in their particular field they will be honoured by their country. In these times we hear of shortages of people in certain fields. We hear that industry attracts young graduates from universities so that people are not available in the university teaching field. If these institutions are not able to pay these people the money in direct competition with industry and the like, governments are charged with giving them something which is perhaps much more valuable to them than money and which at the same time will encourage them in the direction of their energies for the benefit of this country.
Another question I should like to direct to the minister has to do with the civil service. I wonder whether the minister would tell us during the course of the consideration of the estimates-


Roch Pinard: On that question may I say that there is, of course, a special item that deals with the civil service commission. I would much prefer it if my hon. friend would deal with the matter when that item is called. There is a separate item for the civil service commission. I think it would be preferable if he would wait until that item is called.
Supply-Secretary of State


John Cameron Pallett: I shall be very happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister would tell us when the report of the commission on patents and trade marks is going to be available?


Roch Pinard: Again, there is an item that provides for the payment of $20,000 in connection with the Ilsley commission which is investigating the patent and trade mark legislation. I would prefer it if the question were asked of me when the item is considered. It is the last item of the estimates of the Secretary of State department. It is vote 414. An amount of $20,000 is provided in the estimates for that very purpose. I could possibly also mention to my hon. friend that some time ago-I think it was at the end of April-I gave an indication that the report will probably be completed at the beginning of next spring. I was later informed that in respect of the copyright and industrial design legislation the report might be finished by the spring of 1957. The report on patents should be finished shortly after the one on copyright and industrial designs. The commission has considered the possibility of presenting separate reports. Instead of forcing parliament to wait until the full report is completed, it might be possible that a report will first be supplied on copyright and industrial design and then the final report on patents would be submitted.
Mr. Pallet!: I have one comment to make. As the minister may recall, last year he said that he expected this report in about a year. It looks now as though it may be a year or may not be a year.
Now, the history of this particular section of his department has shown that there is a very real need for a certain revision. We are asked to revote money each year, and I gather that up to the end of 1956 the estimated expenditure will be about $45,000, for a commission that cannot tell the minister when it will report or what its findings will be. It seems to me it is time for the minister to start telling the commission to bring in its findings and get a little action in this regard. If patents and copyrights are important, and if their relationship to the field of industrial development in this country is important, I think the minister should exert his influence to see that this commission does get busy. This is not the first time that this matter has been brought up in the house. It has been brought up over the last number of years. Each year the house has been content with the answer, "Well, we know the difficulty and we are attempting to deal with it; we finally have a commission and the commission has promised us the report will be in within a year."

Supply-Secretary of State


Roch Pinard: They said, "We hope".


John Cameron Pallett: Yes. I urge, as strongly as I am able, that the minister exert pressure on the commission to report soon.
I have one final point to make before I sit down. In reading the memoirs of a former vice-president of the United States I noticed that he said when he became vice-president he was like a man who went on an adventure and was never heard from again. I think the Secretary of State is in great danger of being put in the same position. A man is made Secretary of State and that is the last he is heard from. I hope the minister will take that to heart. I think one very recent illustration was our July 1 holiday, Dominion day. This is a field in which the Secretary of State should have been concerned. He should have made sure that Canadians across this country knew what Dominion day meant. I think, with the greatest respect, that the full significance of the day was not brought home to them. When we come back next year, if he is still here, I hope the Secretary of State will accept the responsibility for these intangibles, if you will, that are in his department and that is one of them. Then we, in Canada, will know exactly what Dominion day means.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There are just two matters on which I wish to secure information, and one arises out of the remarks made by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, the recognition of Canadians in a manner in keeping with the democratic traditions. I remember so well some years ago when the Right Hon. Mr. King introduced the measure for the creation of the Canada medal. This was to be a decoration awarded to Canadians, and one that would meet the democratic ideal while at the same time setting apart those Canadians who received it as persons who had made important and significant contributions to Canada. But for some reason or other the Canada medal, like the Canada Council seems to have been conceived and brought into existence by legislation and then placed in moth balls. I should like to ascertain from the minister why it is that Canadians are not receiving this decoration. What is holding it back? What is the nature of the revulsion on the part of the government against recommending Canadians for this decoration? When does the minister expect that the first of those to be honoured with this distinctively Canadian order of merit, if I may use that expression, will receive it; for certainly as yet we have never been able to secure any information on this? I feel it would be a very fine thing for Canada if Canadians could have that decoration. I can think of those in the arts, in literature, in science and in other walks of

life to whom this decoration, while of no monetary value, would be a significant one because of the honour it would bring to them by being singled out for the award.
That is the first thing I should like to hear from the minister. Then, I should like to know something about the Great Seal of Canada. I would like to know from him at what stage the words, "Dominion of Canada" were removed from the seal and in place of the word "Dominion" the designation that now appears on the Great Seal that was recently brought into effect was placed there. My recollection is the designation is now "Queen of Canada". Has there been anything in the nature of an order in council passed to remove the description of this country as the Dominion of Canada? Incidentally, the only knowledge I have of the rather devious means adopted to remove this designation was first through the telephone book and then afterwards in one or two statutes.
It is interesting to note that as one reads the debates at the time of confederation and throughout the years this country was invariably described as the Dominion of Canada without any suggestion of subservience whatsoever in that designation. The Statute of Westminster refers to the various dominions, and it has not been amended in any way.


Roch Pinard: Is it not a fact that the statute says, "A dominion known as Canada"?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is what it says.


Roch Pinard: Not "a country known as-".


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can answer me in a moment. I am going to continue. Throughout the years, by all of Canada's leading parliamentarians, until the year 1945 or 1946, the reference in Hansard to Canada was invariably "The Dominion of Canada". I remember so well when the Prime Minister made his maiden speech in this house in 1941. He referred to this country as the Dominion of Canada, quoting at the same time the description of this country as it appears in the British North America Act. How many submissions were made to Her Majesty before the present Great Seal was decided on? Did any of those submissions include the description "Dominion of Canada"? At what time in our history did the Great Seal cease to have any reference to Canada as the Dominion of Canada?
Those are two matters that I should like the minister to enlighten the house and country on, for I feel that there has been much too much change made in this connection without parliament being given the right to decide the question. There are some ministers of the crown-I think of two in particular-who

whenever they speak in this house refer to this country as the Dominion of Canada. They are colleagues of the minister. I should like the minister to explain this change which has taken place so surreptitiously in recent years. I think possibly he will clarify everything when he advises how many alternatives for the Great Seal were submitted to Her Majesty. I seem to remember that when the Great Seal was brought into being reference was made, either by the minister or by some other minister of the cabinet, to the effect that it represented a final decision on the part of Her Majesty after certain alternative Great Seals had been submitted.
These are but two matters at the moment upon which I think the minister could be of considerable assistance to the thinking of our country if he were to enlarge upon them.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, since the Secretary of State is the official channel through whom suggestions and recommendations by members of this house and others are made to Her Majesty or to her personal representative for her gracious consideration, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make two suggestions for the consideration of the government and Her Majesty. All hon. members of this house, and indeed I hope all citizens of this Dominion of Canada, are of course aware that Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada and the head of the government. However, the awareness of this fact tends to fade in the minds of the public, and indeed I think possibly in the minds of some members of the house, owing to the fact that most of us are not privileged to see Her Majesty in person, save on very rare occasions, except by means of television, newsreels and so on.
If the suggestion had been made 50 years ago that Her Majesty should take up residence for some part of the year in this country or indeed in other dominions it would have been considered impossible, but because of greatly improved transportation facilities in the world and speed with which one can travel from one part of the world to another, or perhaps it would be better to say from one part of the commonwealth to another, there is no reason that I can see why Her Majesty might not give consideration to spending some time in the Kingdom of Canada or possibly I should say in the Dominion of Canada.
I realize that because of her official duties in the United Kingdom it would be impossible for Her Majesty to do this for any great length of time, and it is also possible that other members of the commonwealth such as our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand might also request Her Majesty to take up residence there for certain periods of time, but I think it might very well be 67509-359
Supply-Secretary of State suggested, and I hope the government will give consideration to recommending this to Her Majesty, that Her Majesty should come in person to this country and officially open each new parliament every four years and at the same time take up residence here for possibly three, four or five months. I can see no reason why this could not be done.
It would keep alive an awareness in the minds of our people that the keystone of our system of government is the crown. By having Her Majesty here in person for even a brief period of three or four months every four or five years the importance of our constitutional monarchy would be impressed, not only upon the minds of the people of this country but upon the minds of our neighbours to the south. I think this would be a very wise thing to do.
The second matter which I wish to mention and which is related to the first concerns the appointment of Her Majesty's personal representatives. In the near future Her Majesty will no doubt be appointing a personal representative other than the present incumbent and I think this matter might well be considered before any such appointment takes place. I do not think for one moment that it would be advisable, as we have done in the past, to continue to have Her Majesty's representatives appointed exclusively from the United Kingdom. I think we have outgrown that, shall I say, but on the other hand I do not think it would be wise to have Her Majesty appoint a Canadian on every occasion. While it may not be so at the present time the fact is that in the future, and we must look to the future in considering these matters, such a practice might lead to appointments of a purely political nature and that would do little less than to create a lack of respect for this very high office, the highest in the land. I think that is something which should be considered. We have seen in similar circumstances that on occasion criticism has been directed at the other place for just such practices.
What would the alternative be? My suggestion, which I believe is concurred in by other members of this house, is one which I think should be considered and carefully explored. I suggest that there should be an exchange of governors general with other members of the commonwealth. I think most of us, indeed I would hope all of us who are members of this house, will agree that the British commonwealth is a fine institution, is a fine example to other countries in the world and is something that should be preserved. Anything that we can do to help keep closer the ties between members of the commonwealth should be encouraged at all times.

Supply-Secretary of State
There is little doubt in my mind that if we were to exchange governors general with other members of the commonwealth it would bring home to the people of Canada the fact that we are members of this great institution. It would also bring home that fact to the people of other countries in the world. They would thus see that there is some tangible relationship between the members of the commonwealth. How often have members of this house been asked by their friends from the south or from other countries just what is our commonwealth. We are told that we have different parliaments but many people do not know the relationship that really exists. They tell us that we have no common defence system, nor any common foreign policy. The stock answer is, "We have the crown as a common symbol". That is a little difficult for other people to understand sometimes because they fail to realize the relationship between the commonwealth countries. Sometimes other countries get a different and mistaken apprehension of the real bonds of culture and friendship that exist between the members of the commonwealth. I think it would help a great deal to show, both to ourselves at home and to our friends in other countries, that there is a definite link between the members of the commonwealth, if we did have an exchange of governors general.
Of course, if this were the case, any person that Her Majesty chose to appoint as her personal representative in one of the commonwealth countries would be clearly above any question of local politics, which is, of course, something not only to be desired but absolutely necessary with this very high office.
In addition to that, of course, as all members know, at the present time the only members of the commonwealth that have governors general are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Other members of the commonwealth, such as India, Pakistan and Ceylon, at the present time do not have a personal representative of Her Majesty. But there are other countries which are presently part of the empire and not yet members of the commonwealth that will become members of the commonwealth-countries such as Nigeria, the Gold Coast and at some time in the future, no doubt, the West Indies.
If such an arrangement were made whereby members of the commonwealth exchanged governors general, it would certainly point an example to all countries of the world and show that we in the commonwealth do have respect for equality of race, creed and colour. I hope it might even encourage countries such as India or Pakistan to reconsider coming back into a somewhat closer relationship with the commonwealth than at present.


I realize that this is something that might seem a little strange at first in Canada if we possibly had a governor general of a different colour or even a different religion than ourselves. If the commonwealth is to lead the way in the world-I know it is a trite expression and I hesitate to use it, but it is a good one-towards the future brotherhood of man, and if we are going to live on in peace with each other in the world, we have to accept these things. I think this would show the people in other countries that we in the commonwealth mean it.
That is all I have to say at this time. I hope very sincerely that these matters have been and will continue to be kept under consideration by the government.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: For several years now the suggestion has been advanced in this house that we should have as a governor general somebody from another part of the commonwealth. However, there are very obvious difficulties, and these difficulties have been created in no small measure by the government.
Consider what would happen if we had as a governor general somebody from India, Ceylon, Pakistan or Nigeria. However would he get past the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? It simply cannot be done, because the laws of this country are such that these people would not fit into Canada. They could not assimilate themselves in the slightest way. The climate would affect them adversely, for one thing. Therefore, though we in this party would favour such a project, there would have to be either a change in the ministry or a change in the regulations and laws of this country. From my point of view, what ought to happen is a change in the ministry, and certainly a change in the rules and laws because, as they are now administered, they are at the best an aberration and at the worst complete stupidity.
The difficulty in getting somebody from India, Pakistan, Ceylon or, as the hon. member for Oxford suggests, from Nigeria is obviously too great for the present minister of immigration to contemplate, no matter how much we should like to see a governor general coming from some other part of the commonwealth. I myself am not too addicted to the idea of always having someone from the United Kingdom come here to represent Her Majesty; still less am I addicted to the idea of some Canadian politician, past or possibly present, occupying the same high office. It is one that ought to be outside the bounds of political controversy, and I hope that is remembered in the future.
However, there is a question I should like the minister to answer now at this particular

stage. I wonder whether he can give the committee details of the latest report of the custodian of enemy property.


Roch Pinard: The report of the custodian, which was tabled a few months ago, does indicate that the work of the office is proceeding rapidly now and that the fund still in the hands of the custodian has now reached a figure of $8,334,430. That is the fund which the office of the custodian has acquired as a result of the seizure of enemy property under the act.
There is also the office administration account, which discloses that there is still in the fund for the office administration account the sum of $4,165,878. I mention these figures because they should indicate quite a substantial reduction in so far as the fund and the vested assets of the custodian are concerned. The figures have been reduced greatly. Although it is difficult to say when they will have disposed of the whole of the assets seized, it is hoped that the work can be completed in a not far distant future.
I might also mention that there has been, as the result of what I have already indicated, a reduction in personnel. The custodian's office, which as of December 31, 1954, had a personnel of 50, has reduced its personnel now to 44. During the year 1955, two members of the custodian's office retired under the Civil Service Superannuation Act; two were transferred to other departments of the civil service; one member resigned; and one died. Furthermore, on November 9, 1955-and that is what I wanted to allude to-11 members were given notice that their services would not be required after December 31, 1955, which does indicate that the operations are proceeding in such a way as to justify the thought that the operations might be completed in the not far distant future.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister tell me how many claims are still outstanding and against what ex-enemy countries?


Roch Pinard: These claims, as my hon. friend knows, are dealt with by the war claims commission. I might say that the total amount of the claims paid to June 30 of this year is $5,068,000. That figure concerns claims against Germany, Hungary, Italy and Japan. The total amount of the claims outstanding is still $136,700,000, approximately, but the greater proportion of this large amount is for claims resulting from loss of property which alone represent the very large figure of $136,358,144. That does not, of course, answer completely the question asked as to how many claims are left to be 67509-3591
Supply-Secretary of State dealt with, but I will try to get that information. I find I have it now. There are still in process 1,536 claims, 1,501 of which are claims from civilians, and then there are 35 claims for maltreatment from prisoners of war or their representatives. I might also indicate that the total number of claims was 13,982 out of which 4,193 have been disallowed and 8,253 have been paid.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to ask the minister a question which has already been raised in connection with the commission set up under the Inquiries Act to investigate the Patent Act and the Copyright Act. Can the minister give the committee any information as to the terms of reference of the commission? I should also like to have him give information with respect to whether or not the commission makes any investigation of the actions of companies involved in any misuse or manipulation of the Copyright Act and the Patent Act for the purpose of setting up monopolies in this country. I realize it is well known that through the Department of Justice many prosecutions have taken place under the Combines Investigation Act, but I think most of us are quite concerned about monopolies being formed in this country and the ineffectiveness of the Combines Investigation Act. Can the minister inform the committee how many cases that have been prosecuted by the Department of Justice have involved the manipulation or misuse of the Copyright Act or the Patent Act?


Roch Pinard: I think this information could only be supplied by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. I am not in a position to say how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Department of Justice under the Combines Investigation Act even if some of them did concern the operations of the patent division, but I will try to obtain the information and see whether I can furnish it to my hon. friend.


Edward George McCullough: Can
the minister give us the terms of reference of the commission?


Roch Pinard: I think the terms of reference will cover what my hon. friend has in mind. They do allow the commission to deal with organizations which would pool patents of invention, for instance, in order to organize a combine. I definitely think that the terms of reference are wide enough to cover that, and by just reading the first paragraph of those terms I think my hon. friend will see that they do cover that. The first paragraph reads as follows:
That a commission of inquiry be established under the authority of part I of the Inquiries Act, to inquire as to whether federal legislation relating

Supply-Secretary of State in any way to patents of invention, industrial designs, copyright and trade-marks affords reasonable incentives to invention and research, to the development of literary and artistic talent, to creativeness, and to making available to the Canadian public scientific, technical, literary and artistic creations and their applications, adaptations and uses, in a manner and oh terms adequately safeguarding the paramount public interest, the whole in the light of present day economic conditions, scientific, technical and industrial developments, trade practices and any other relevant factors or circumstances, including practices under or related to the said legislation and any relevant international convention to which Canada is a party; to submit to the governor in council a report on its findings . . .
In other words, I definitely think that what my hon. friend has in mind is fully covered by the terms of reference. If the commission is to inquire whether federal legislation relating in any way to patents of invention affords reasonable incentive to invention and research, to the development of literary and artistic talent, etc., in a manner and on terms adequately safeguarding the paramount public interest, I do think this covers what my hon. friend has in mind.


Edward George McCullough: Can
the minister state how many of these cases have been referred by the commission to the Department of Justice for review or investigation?


Roch Pinard: I do not think the commission has yet referred any of these cases, if they have found them in existence, to the Department of Justice. Whether they have found anything of that kind will be disclosed in their report. In their report they might make recommendations to that effect but until such time as the report has been completed I do not think the commission would do that. They would inquire whether what my hon. friend has in mind exists and then in their report would make recommendations.


Edward George McCullough: I have to go to a committee right away but before I do I have one last question. Would the minister be good enough to state why there is a reduction of $15,000 in the appropriation for the commission this year?


Roch Pinard: I am told that the commission simply informed us that they expect to complete their report by next spring and they do not think that the rest of the work to be done requires as much in the way of expenditure as the preceding work did. In other words, most of the evidence has already been submitted and the rest of the work is of a nature that does not justify the expenditure of more than is being requested.


Edward George McCullough: I take it that this will not be a continuing commission with its work continuing over the years.


Roch Pinard: Oh no, that is not what the terms of reference disclose. They indicate that a report will be submitted which will contain their recommendations. As it says at the end of the reference, they will submit a report of their findings to the governor general in council with any recommendations that may appear advisable for changes in the said legislation. In other words, it is not a continuing commission. It is a commission of inquiry and when the inquiry has been completed it will submit its report.


Mr. Hansell:: Since the minister is now answering questions, I should like to ask him two. They are in reference to a matter about which I was in touch with him some weeks ago. He will recall that I was inquiring of his department with respect to the registration of a certain pension society. I understand that pension societies and companies can register with the department of the Secretary of State. My particular questions are these. When such a society or company is registered, is it obligatory upon them to file with his department an annual financial statement of their affairs? My second question is this. If an annual statement is filed with his department, is that statement open to public scrutiny?


Roch Pinard: There is a special act-the Pension Fund Societies Act-which deals with the conditions of incorporation. The only thing I recall at the moment of the conditions mentioned in the act is that they may register with the department of the Secretary of State. I shall be obliged to look into the matter in order to see whether they must file an annual statement and whether or not it is open to the public for examination. I shall have to look into the matter and I will try to give an answer a little later.


Ernest George Hansell: All right. I will not take up any more time now but I will say this. In the case of a pension society, I believe that any member or any person contributing to that pension fund should have made available to him the annual statement as filed in the Secretary of State's department.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I listened with much interest and attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) about a way of recognizing, through the Secretary of State, acts of

bravery performed by worthy Canadians during the year.
For instance, last fall in the city of Verdun, near Montreal, some children nearly lost their lives in an unfortunate fire. We then learned that they had been saved through the heroic action of a milkman by the name of Chipman. However, during the weeks that followed this rescue, newspapers seemed to question the identity of the rescuer and even wondered whether the rescue had actually been made by the man named Chip-man or by someone else. I understand however that the Secretary of State did not investigate the matter too closely and that just the same the George Medal for bravery was awarded to milkman Chipman. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) might be able to let us know what reports were made to his office on that occasion, and where matters now stand with regard to the person named Chipman, of Verdun.
That was the first matter I intended to raise.
In the second place, I thank the hon. member for Peel for bringing up this matter of the recognition of acts of bravery. It is very interesting to note that the Secretary of State grants awards to people for acts of bravery and I congratulate the department. However, I wonder-and I should like to stress that point-whether it would not be possible also to recognize the obvious talent of some people who are active in other fields. Many Canadians, throughout the country, and regardless of language or religion, have, each in his own field, made important contributions and rendered great services to the Canadian nation.
I may perhaps be allowed to insist particularly, this afternoon, on the worthy contribution made to Canadian literature generally and perhaps to French-Canadian literature especially, by an obviously gifted young man, a remarkable author who, by the way, was born and raised in the constituency which I have the honour to represent here. Because of this talent and of the personal qualities so characteristic of the man, he had become prominent not only in French Canada but throughout this country. The merits of Mr. Roger Lemelin, well known writer, have been recognized not only by the city of Quebec from whom he has received, only a short time ago, a certificate of honorary citizenship, but also by France. Flattering tributes have also come to him from the United States. At the present time all Canadians are privileged to appreciate the
Supply-Secretary of State remarkable talents of this young man of whom we are so proud and whose work is carried over the airwaves in both the English and the French languages.
He is the author of that remarkable book called "Au pied de la pente douce" (The Town Below) and of that other one to which I have particular reference and which has already been translated into several languages, ''The Plouffe Family" which is carried every day on Canadian television stations.
Mr. Chairman, I should like at this time to speak on behalf, not only of Canadians of the province of Quebec, but of all Canadians in general, so that the department of the Secretary of State may give recognition to the undeniable value of this fellow citizen, who is a credit to his family and his small Quebec home, as well as to the whole people of Canada.
Roger Lemelin is my fellow citizen and I believe that this well-known, very popular and highly esteemed author's competence and contribution to Canada's cultural development should be given official recognition. That would certainly be looked upon favourably all across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to state my personal opinion on a question raised a few minutes ago by two members of different political affiliations and which has not received unanimous approval. I shall state a third point of view as regards the appointment of the governor general of Canada.
I believe we should be proud that a few years ago Canada which, after all, is an adult and autonomous nation, appointed for the first time a Canadian as governor general of Canada. I would not suggest that we should go out and seek in other countries of the commonwealth for people of unquestioned merit to assume the duties of governor general of our country. Rather do I feel that we should stick to the present procedure and appoint an English-speaking Canadian whose successor would, in turn, be a French-speaking Canadian.
I believe that somebody has already proposed that the next governor general of French language be the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent). I have-no objection and I would even approve the choice immediately if the right hon. Prime Minister decides to tender his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada, and I say this jocularly.
I believe that we should proceed in that connection according to the same principle

Supply-Secretary of State which prevails in the House of Commons. We recognize that there are two official languages in Canada. The fact is asserted in the British North America Act. We recognize that principle in the House of Commons by appointing alternately, for each parliament, a French-speaking Speaker and an Englishspeaking Speaker.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the few remarks I have made today in the house should be taken into consideration and that serious thought be given to the possibility of appointing, when the mandate of His Excellency the Governor General expires, a French-speaking Canadian to that honorary office.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wished to make this afternoon, perhaps contrary to what I usually do, I did not criticize. I hope that those few remarks will be taken into serious consideration by the hon. the Secretary of State and by the government of which he is a minister.


Mr. Girard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a few questions to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard).
Last year, in this house, I put on the record some figures taken out of the public accounts about the representation of French-speaking Canadians within the federal civil service. This year, I understand that the hon. Secretary of State who now has jurisdiction over the civil service commission has himself ordered an inquiry such as I urged last year, and I wanted to know whether his department had made that inquiry.
To a question which I put to him a few months ago, he answered that in fact he had ordered such an inquiry and that, after waiting a few weeks-


Roch Pinard: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Is he saying at this time that I personally ordered an inquiry along the lines he has indicated, or whether such an inquiry has been ordered by the civil service commission. I would like to keep the record straight. This information was requested by the civil service commission, not by myself.


Fernand Girard: I believe that, in his answer to the house, the hon. Secretary of State said that the inquiry had been ordered by the civil service commission, but that the commission was under his jurisdiction.


Roch Pinard: I understand but the civil
service commission is an altogether inde-

pendent organization of which I am simply the spokesman in the House of Commons.


Fernand Girard: As spokesman for the civil
service commission, is the hon. Secretary of State now in a position to give us the figures brought about by this inquiry?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Did the hon. Secretary of State ask the civil service commission to investigate this matter?


Fernand Girard: Yes, the investigation took
place, because the minister replied in this house that he had the figures in hand. When giving me those figures, would the Secretary of State tell us, if possible, on what basis that inquiry was made as to the proportion of bilingual civil servants in the different departments, so that we may know what this representation can mean? I would say this. If, in an inquiry on bilingual civil servants, you put together telephone operators, elevator men and engineers, you do not get, of course, a true picture of bilingual representation. I mean that you do not get the true representation in certain executive positions. Did the department, for instance, get any figures as to the number of those who get over $5,000 a year, which might indicate a bilingual representation of ''X"?
Then, could the minister tell us first whether his department has been able to find out, say for the last ten years, what has been the percentage of the progress or of the set-back, as the case may be, experienced by bilingualism in the civil service in general, and secondly by the French-Canadian representation in the civil service?
Here are the figures I arrived at last year on the basis of the public accounts report. By looking up the number of French-speaking employees earning over $5,000 a year, I found out that these employees held 13 per cent of the executive positions. Yet these employees are practically the only bilingual employees in the country. I would like to ask the minister if there has been any progress or otherwise since last year? Can he tell us if his department has taken any steps to promote bilingualism in our Canadian nation and especially in the federal civil service? What has he done personally to encourage such a move? Are there any associations, any movements or any places where, thanks to the government, classes are held for employees who need to be bilingual?
The general feeling prevalent amongst most French-Canadians is that, instead of

something positive being done, the problem is dealt with as it arises. There is another impression abroad too, and that is that the government is content to deal with these problems only when they are acute and that nothing active or positive is being done in order to promote bilingualism. And yet bilingualism provides a bond of goodwill between the two great races which share in the destinies of this fine country of ours.
I would therefore like the minister to tell me what he plans to do in the various departments in order to promote bilingualism. I see that bilingual French-speaking employees ' are paid the same salary as English-speaking employees, who speak only one language. As a matter of fact, here, in this parliament, the same salary is paid bilingual stenographers as is paid unilingual ones. There would seem to be an opportunity here of promoting real national unity in this country.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I know that there were other matters which intervened and denied the minister the opportunity of answering the questions which I directed to him some time ago. I will add to those questions as part of the general picture, so he may answer them all at once. I should like to know who are the members of the awards co-ordination committee. How often does this committee sit, and has it made any recommendations for the award of the Canada medal that have not been acted upon by the government in a recommendation to Her Majesty? Furthermore, in regard to the Canada medal I should like to ask the minister whether or not the medal was produced. Has it been minted, if that is the proper expression? In what numbers has it been minted and where are those medals being kept? This mystery deserves to be dissipated because I remember, as does the minister, the degree of enthusiasm with which the former prime minister produced this decoration which was to be peculiar to Canada and one which was to be awarded with much care. Surely, that degree of care does not make necessary the entire denial to all the population of this most worthy decoration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the scarcest decoration in the world.


Mrs. Fairclough:: It is non-existent.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that is a proper description of it. It is almost a collector's
Supply-Secretary of State item. That is how scarce it is. We should find out where those medals are, because certainly many worthy Canadians will be interested to know that the worthiness of this decoration is apparently dependent upon its not being awarded.
The other question I asked the minister had to do with the use of the word "Dominion" and its removal from the Great Seal.


Roch Pinard: Did it exist? Does my hon. friend know whether it actually existed on the Great Seal?


John George Diefenbaker: I saw the actual Great Seal. The minister can answer when he rises. There has been a movement, Mr. Chairman, in the direction of chiselling away the use of "Dominion". I saw an example of it in the dominion bureau of statistics building in this city, that magnificent structure, the proper description of which, according to the statute is the dominion bureau of statistics. But, on the two pillars in front of the building the word "Dominion", which is the official title under the statute, has not been added. It simply says "Bureau of Statistics Building", although when you get inside the building you find on the walls it is described on the armorial bearings on the permanent structure as "The Dominion Bureau of Statistics". I would ask the minister to enlarge on the reason why the expression "Dominion of Canada" is being avoided by this government, and on the basis of what legislative enactment of parliament is it being done?
Following that, I should like to direct the minister's attention to one other matter, but since it is not connected with the two questions I have asked him I would appreciate very much if he would enlarge on the matters and give the country the benefit of his knowledge in connection therewith.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I wish first of all to say that no doubt the gifted way in which the hon. member gave the benefit of his knowledge of these matters will be appreciated, and I have listened to his remarks with great interest.
He asked a question concerning the Canada medal, to which he also made allusion a few minutes ago. During his remarks he marvelled at the preciousness of that decoration which has not been awarded to anyone since it has been created. If I am not mistaken, the Canada medal was established in October, 1943, by order in council P.C. 7964. I am not in a position to say whether or not the



Supply-Secretary of State medal has been minted. I think I heard remarks last year to that effect made by someone in this house, but I have not been able to ascertain whether in fact this medal has been minted by the Royal Canadian Mint. One thing appears to be sure, namely, that no award of this medal was ever made, at least to my knowledge, to anyone. Whether or not the enthusiasm to which my hon. friend referred, which was in the mind of the then prime minister when he created it, was shared by the members of this government I do not know. But the fact remains that no such medal was awarded to anyone to my knowledge.
The hon. member also made reference to the Great Seal of Canada which he says-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on, will he say who the members of the awards co-ordination committee are and whether they recommended anyone for this medal?


Roch Pinard: No, I may say immediately no recommendation was made by the awards co-ordination committee for the awarding of the Canada medal. The committee's chairman is my deputy minister and the members of the awards co-ordination committee are representatives from at least two or three departments of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are they?


Roch Pinard: There is the under secretary of state as chairman; there is a representative of the governor general; there are three representatives of the Department of National Defence; there is a representative of the Department of Labour and of the Department of Transport; and also a representative of the dominion archivist; but they are not necessarily the same people. There is a representative from each of those departments who is not necessarily always the same. This group forms the awards co-ordinating committee which sits on no fixed dates but whenever there are enough requests for decorations to justify a sitting of the committee to take place.


John George Diefenbaker: When did it last sit?


Roch Pinard: It did sit quite recently, if I am not mistaken, a few weeks ago.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How often has it sat altogether?


Roch Pinard: A number of times, but I cannot possibly say how often.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: With very negative results, I take it.


Roch Pinard: Not necessarily. I think in quite a few cases quite a few representations and recommendations were made and in most cases they were followed.
The hon. member for Prince Albert also referred to the Great Seal of Canada and mentioned the fact, if I understood him correctly, that the expression "The Dominion of Canada" had disappeared from the Great Seal of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that. I asked if it had, and if there had been any change?


Roch Pinard: The inscription on the former ' Great Seal of Canada was as follows, and it was in Latin: "George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King, Defender of the Faith. Georgius VI" and then the initials "D. Gratia Mag.", which I unfortunately cannot translate. It would be magnae-
I am not sure. "Brit."


John George Diefenbaker: What are those letters?


Roch Pinard: M-a-g. I will ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did know at one time, but I have forgotten.


John George Diefenbaker: That must be some
language other than Latin; otherwise the minister of citizenship would certainly be able to clear it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is an abbreviation and I forget what it abbreviates.


Roch Pinard: The English words I quoted were a translation of what I am now trying to read and cannot because I have just the abbreviations. I would have to read what they mean one by one, and unfortunately I cannot translate them at the moment.
It has been said that the Great Seal does not contain the words "Dominion of Canada". The previous seal contained a reference to British dominions beyond the seas. I have a copy of a print taken from that seal. The hon. member also said that there seems to be a growing practice of doing away with the word "dominion". I would refer him to the British North America Act but I realize also that the opinion I hold may not be shared by my hon. friend. Section 3 reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this act, the provinces of Canada, of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada.
If I remember correctly the Prime Minister said at one time that it should be possible

to designate our country as the Dominion of Canada or as Canada. In my opinion either expression could be used, but whether or not this country should be designated as the Dominion of Canada or as Canada would be left to the appreciation of the person concerned.
The hon. member for Prince Albert inquired as to what alternative submissions had been made to Her Majesty in connection with the Great Seal. I may tell him that only one submission was made containing a recommendation that the words now contained in the new Great Seal of Canada be used. In other words, the design and inscription were the result of that one recommendation and submission made to Her Majesty.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer some questions asked by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard). I should reply first to the remarks made by the hon. member for Quebec West about the George Medal awarded a few months ago to Mr. Edward Chipman. If I remember rightly, the Canada Gazette announced in December 1955 that such a decoration had been awarded. Moreover, if again my memory serves me well, the award of the George Medal had been recommended following an act of bravery on the part of Mr. Chipman in a fire that occurred in December 1954. Since the question was raised by the hon. member for Quebec West, I take this opportunity to inform the house that a decision has been made in this matter, and that it will be made known in the Canada Gazette of this forthcoming Saturday.
(Text):
Possibly I should continue my remarks in English for the benefit of those who might be interested in this matter and who might not be able to follow exactly what I am saying in French. This medal was awarded in December, 1955 as the result of a recommendation made to Her Majesty. Hon. members will recall that after the medal was awarded certain allegations were made in the press that the act of bravery which had been performed by the recipient of the medal was not of a degree to justify the awarding of the medal. Because of that controversy the recipient of the medal has asked permission to have the award cancelled, and has so informed the chairman of the awards co-ordination committee. I can say now that Her Majesty has graciously agreed to have the award cancelled and the notice will appear in the Canada Gazette of this week reading as follows:
Supply-Secretary of State
The Queen has been graciously pleased at the request of Mr. Edward C. Chipman, Verdun, P.Q., to cancel the award of the George Medal to Mr. Chipman, of which notice was published in the Canada Gazette of December 17, 1955.
I can assure the house that the matter was investigated fully and considered in all its aspects. While controversy in regard to a matter of this kind is of course perfectly legitimate and helpful in my opinion it should not be prolonged because it would tend to discredit this very high decoration. As far as I am concerned I would think the fact that the intended recipient of the medal has asked to have the award cancelled does not necessarily indicate that he did not perform an act of bravery. No doubt because of the controversy and the other circumstances he decided that he ought to ask permission to have the award cancelled. The allegations made in the newspapers at the time were that the act of bravery in which he participated might not have been of a degree which justified the awarding of such a high decoration.
I might mention incidentally that this is not the highest decoration awarded to civilians; the highest is the George Cross. When this matter was being discussed by the newspapers it was said that the decoration that had been awarded was the highest that could be awarded to a civilian.
I do not think anything more need be said, nor would it be helpful. In my opinion it would simply help to discredit this medal which is held in such high esteem by the nations of the commonwealth.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe has referred to the problem of bilingualism-and I am stressing those words "problem of bilingualism"-which is of great concern to him, for which I give him great credit. It is a problem which I myself consider of the highest import. I must say that, since I first entered this Canadian parliament, I have always taken every possible step to have such a bilingual group as would reflect great credit not only on the province of Quebec, but on the French-speaking minority that he and I, as well as several others, represent in this house.
First of all, I would like to say a few words in connection with his remarks about an inquiry that is supposed to have been directed by the civil service commission. I do say "directed by the civil service commission" because this is the information contained in the answer I gave at the time. The civil service commission, which is a definitely

Supply-Secretary of State independent organization, had decided for reasons it had considered necessary, to inquire and attempt to determine what was the position in relation to bilingualism in the province of Quebec as well as in the remainder of the country. Following a request by my hon. friend, I informed him of the answer supplied by the civil service commission, and from which the hon. member probably inferred that most departments had not been able to give an adequate reply. I then pointed out that the answer of the civil service commission, which I was endorsing, indicated that it was difficult to determine the degree of bilingualism among employees of the commission. Some of these with English-sounding names nevertheless speak excellent French and, in some cases, even do not know English. The opposite is also true. Some with French-sounding names do not speak French.
There is also that extremely difficult and arduous matter of analysing the degree of bilingualism of an employee of the civil service commission. It is undoubtedly for that reason that only an inadequate answer can be given on the matter, for it is practically impossible to give an accurate reply.
I remember the comments that were made at the time by some newspapermen who blamed me for endorsing that reply which, according to them, was not satisfactory. I wish to repeat that, in my view, it is extremely difficult to determine the degree of bilingualism of a federal civil servant. I would be very glad for suggestions, not only from my hon. friend but from anyone else in this house, as to how investigators should go about determining which civil servants are genuinely bilingual. In very many cases bilingual candidates occupy a position where they need not be bilingual. On the other hand, there are cases where employees who claim to be bilingual are not so at all. That is why it is very difficult to give exact and adequate information on this matter.
Just as my hon. friend, I am convinced that bilingualism is making notable headway in this country. I agree with him that there is still room for improvement. Some time ago, the hon. member introduced in the house a bill containing certain suggestions. At that time, I opposed the bill as it was drafted but I clearly stated that I approved it in principle. By what means the suggestions made in that bill could be implemented that remains to be seen. Personally, I believe, as my hon. friend, that bilingual employees should receive not a preferential but a different treatment, on

account of that extra qualification, and that they should therefore be given preference over any non-bilingual candidate to a civil service position. Some system might be devised to achieve that end. Following the introduction of my hon. friend's bill,-indeed I had done so before that-I discussed the matter at some length with representatives of the civil service commission and I asked them to suggest as soon as possible some amendments to the civil service regulations so as to do justice to the employees concerned.
As I pointed out a moment ago, the commission is an independent organization, but I really hope to be able to convince it to bring about certain changes along the lines I have indicated.


Fernand Girard: Will the minister allow me a question?


Roch Pinard: Of course.


Fernand Girard: The minister stated a while ago, in his answer, that it was no easy matter to determine the degree of bilingualism of a civil servant. But would it not be possible for a candidate to demonstrate his ability by submitting to a test? Does the civil service commission not have several classes of examinations which are meant to determine whether a candidate is really qualified? Could not something along those lines be brought about to determine whether such and such a candidate is bilingual or not? Examinations are not drawn up to determine whether a candidate is bilingual, but merely to find out whether he is competent.


Roch Pinard: I think I have answered
that. The linguistic knowledge of the candidate is assessed but it is not the subject of a separate examination. Perhaps there should be an examination to determine in the first place the extent of bilingualism of a candidate but I must point out that this qualification is taken into account and is part of the examination. The suggestion made by the hon. member that a separate examination be held to determine to what extent each candidate is bilingual may be an excellent one. I take note of it and I am very glad that the hon. member made it.
As I pointed out a moment ago, I asked the civil service commissioners to make a study of this matter and to draft amendments to be made to the regulations with a view to correcting a situation which, to my mind, is not satisfactory at the present time. It is not satisfactory because it is difficult to arrive at definite conclusions. As soon as I receive those suggestions, I shall make the necessary recommendations to the government and the civil service commission.

(Text):


Mr. Jones:: I should like to refer again to the custodian of enemy property. I need hardly remind the minister of the disgust and dissatisfaction that we felt in British Columbia when the government moved the Japanese inland and in its panic turned over their properties to be sold at a fraction of their value. The Japanese and the public of British Columbia have never been satisfied that these people got a fair deal. I am satisfied to this day that they got a rotten deal, caused by the panic of the government during the war.
For that reason we have had stories of the wealth these people lost, the property they lost and the businesses they lost. In order to try to get at the facts I would ask the minister to give me four figures if at all possible; that is, first of all, the total amount of claims made by Japanese in British Columbia, the total amount paid on those claims, the amount of the claims refused and the amount of the claims still outstanding. I think if we get those four figures we will have the answer to the dissatisfaction that is still rampant among the people who know the Japanese, live with them and in many cases have dealings with them. I hope the minister can give me those figures.


Roch Pinard: I shall try to obtain those figures. Some of them would be contained in the report of the royal commission that considered this problem at the time, but I will try to get more precise and definite figures from the custodian's office and inform my hon. friend accordingly.


Owen Lewis Jones: I tried to get those four figures and I could not. If the minister would kindly undertake to give me those figures at a later date I would be very pleased.


Roch Pinard: I will certainly do that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I return once more to one of the questions I asked the minister. Before doing so, however, I want to say to the minister that I like the courteous way in which he answers questions. This type of examination of estimates brings out information without unnecessary heat, and I do say to the minister that the manner in which he answers questions deserves commendation. I very seldom say things like that, but when a minister acts as he has acted today they deserve to be said. That does not mean, sir, that I agree with some of his conclusions.


Roch Pinard: Beware of the Greeks.


John George Diefenbaker: He rather brushed aside the action of the government in trying to get rid of the word "dominion" in every possible way, for what reason I do not know.
Supply-Secretary of State The minister explained that according to the preamble of the British North America Act it was possible to say that this country was the Dominion of Canada or Canada. The fact is that for over 80 years tradition everywhere in our country has resulted in it being described as the Dominion of Canada.


Roch Pinard: We also say province of Saskatchewan. We also say province of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: I come back to an example I mentioned a while ago having to do with the bureau of statistics. According to chapter 257 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and this has not been changed by parliament, "bureau" means the dominion bureau of statistics, and the act is an act respecting the dominion bureau of statistics. Yet some tinkerer has altered that title on the front of the dominion bureau of statistics building to "bureau of statistics". It is this tinkering outside of parliament to which I object. If these changes are to made, let them be made by the representatives of the people of Canada, not by administrators, cabinet ministers and others behind the back of parliament. Having said that, I wish now to make reference to another matter.


Roch Pinard: I do not think there was any alteration or change made.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Roch Pinard: Not on the building to which the hon. member refers.


John George Diefenbaker: The building should be the dominion bureau of statistics building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe it should be, but it never was. You said it had been altered.


John George Diefenbaker: Here again we have that customary deviation or perhaps I should say uncustomary deviation from the facts in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so often engages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that the hon. gentleman said I had deviated from the facts, or he referred to a customary deviation from the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Uncustomary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not objecting to him saying that at all, but I do think if he does say it that I am entitled to be told in what respect I have deviated. I should like to put this question to him because I think we can clear this up at once. He said the title on the building was altered. The building is a new building, and I do not believe there was ever any alteration made in the title. I believe it has always had the same title in the few years
5656	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State since it was built. This is an example of the hon. gentleman's customary deviation from the facts, not mine.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is an example of the kind of hairsplitting that used to be engaged in by the "school-men" in the middle ages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Anybody who talks about "Dominion of Canada" is hairsplitting.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the proper description is "dominion bureau of statistics" according to the statute, and the building should be the dominion bureau of statistics building. In spite of that these tinkerers, who are forever chiselling at Canada's relationship within the commonwealth-


Roch Pinard: I do not think so.


John George Diefenbaker: -have removed "dominion" in the description of that building, though when you come inside the building where there is less permanence the building is described in painted letters as "dominion bureau of statistics". But outside on the plaque it is "bureau of statistics".


An hon. Member:: Splitting hairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Having said that, I say that what many Canadians object to is that these changes, like the telephone book changes and the like, are all made outside of parliament. If they are to be made, let them be made by the representatives of the people openly and aboveboard instead of in a subterranean manner by administrative order or direction.


Mr. McCann:: Give the flag another wave.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that is a typical statement of the hon. gentleman. It is not a question of the flag, it is a question of tradition. It is a question of things being done in a parliamentary way instead of underground and by devious methods. It is against this latter practice that I raise my voice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Childish.


Roch Pinard: May I ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I have apparently touched a sore point.


Roch Pinard: May I ask what this has to do with these estimates?


Mr. Rowe:: Ask the fellow behind you.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I should like to know by what right we discuss matters relating to the Department of Trade and Commerce on the Secretary of State's estimates. If the right is being granted


to the hon. member to discuss trade and commerce estimates now, can the rest of us discuss any item of trade and commerce estimates we wish at this point?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member just came in within the last few minutes. The discussion this afternoon has been in his absence.


George James McIlraith: That is not right. That is contrary to the fact. Your own members will tell you I have been talking with them.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw the hon. gentleman come in and he did not hear the earlier discussion. I was using this example in support of my argument that the word "dominion" is gradually being removed by other than parliamentary means, and this was but an example. I was not discussing the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. If my hon. friend had been here- no doubt he was unavoidably absent for other reasons-he would have been aware of the ground upon which the reference was made.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, I think I must insist on pursuing the subject. First of all, the hon. member has made a foul accusation as to where I have been this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr.   Mc@: I have been in the chamber practically since 2.30 this afternoon, as the members of his own party will tell him if he will take the trouble to ask them. I have been talking with several of them. I do not want the hon. member to get away with putting a misrepresentation like that on Hansard. Having stated that question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you to make a ruling on the point of order. I shall abide by the ruling, too, unlike the hon. member.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. May I make it quite clear that I have just come in. I did not hear the previous debate, but I have been advised as to its tenor by the clerks at the head of the table. I may say that I have been in the chair long enough to say that I do not think any foul accusation was made by the hon. member for Prince Albert sufficient to require a retraction. As I understand it, the question of the use of the word "dominion" and its connotation in connection with decorations and other matters has come up under the estimates of the Secretary of State, and perhaps not unnaturally.
I am not going to rule that the references are out of order. Of course if the hon. member for Prince Albert were to proceed to a critical discussion of the administration of the dominion bureau of statistics, the shoe

might be on the other foot. I believe the hon. member and all other members of the committee can carry on the type of discussion which has been carried on without the necessity of interference from the chair.
I am going to suggest to the hon. member for Prince Albert that he has made his reference or his allusion. I am not going to rule out of order on these estimates a discussion as to the use of the word "dominion" or its non-use by any department of government, because perhaps that matter would be brought to the attention of the government through the department of the Secretary of State. So far I do not think we have exceeded the wide rules which we usually try to apply in connection with discussion of the estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to my friend the hon. member for Ottawa West that there was not any foul accusation. I simply said that he was not here at the time and therefore did not understand how this reference came to be made.


George James McIlraith: Why did you misstate the facts?


John George Diefenbaker: Far from my endeavouring to foul him, Mr. Chairman, may I say that he succeeded in doing that himself. I did not have anything like that in mind at all.


George James McIlraith: Why did you misstate the facts?


William Earl Rowe: He did not do that.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is unnecessarily touchy. I never had anything in mind to harm him. I said, "no doubt unavoidably". It turned out that it was unavoidable, that he was at some committee meeting.


George James McIlraith: He was not at a committee meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely his conscience should not prick him like that.


William Earl Rowe: He said he was not at a committee meeting, so it was not unavoidable.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I withdraw the
word "unavoidable" and say "avoidable". There is one other thing I want to bring to the attention of the minister now. There is provision for a report to him by the committee on the use of parliament hill. I do not know exactly what the nature of that committee is, what it reports on or the nature of the subjects with which it deals. However, I feel that in general it will deal with such matters as are concerned or connected with parliament hill.
Supply-Secretary of State
I should like to ask the minister whether this committee has made any report in connection with a structure on parliament hill which I believe, more than anything else, is one of the great traditional buildings on this hill. I refer to the old Supreme Court of Canada building, for it was in that building that some of the great parliamentarians of Canada, including prime ministers, appeared as counsel. I think of Edward Blake-


Roch Pinard: Yes; but that would be under the Department of Public Works.


John George Diefenbaker: I will terminate my
remarks. As I say, I think of Edward Blake, Sir John Thompson, Sir Robert Borden, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and Louis St. Laurent, all prime ministers of Canada who appeared from time to time and made their distinguished names in that building. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the perpetuation or the preservation of that building, great in history-actually the place where our constitution received its major interpretation-should not be a matter of concern, and whether it should not be maintained as part and parcel of those things worth preserving and deserving to be preserved as part of our history, our tradition, and our past.
Indeed, in so far as the constitution is concerned all our future was made in that building. In that place these five outstanding lawyers, four of whom afterwards became prime ministers of Canada and Edward Blake, the leader of the Liberal party in the 1880's and one of Canada's most outstanding lawyers if not the most outstanding one, made their reputation and shaped Canada's future. Has consideration been given by this committee to the need of preserving this building as one of our great and ancient heritages for the benefit of this and future generations?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I must inform the hon. gentleman that this committee is concerned simply with the use of parliament hill and has nothing to do except with regard to ceremonies to be held on parliament hill. The matter to which he has referred is under the authority of the Minister of Public Works.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably appropriate that in this week in which we have celebrated Dominion Day as the 89th birthday of this great nation, we should now be discussing in this house matters of tradition and honour. In that regard I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the members of this house to what to me seems a great oversight.
5658	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State
Earlier this afternoon members of this house spoke of a Canada Medal. I believe some questions were asked with reference to the Canada Council. But recognition for services rendered and work done in Canada has over the years been accorded to Canadian citizens by the government or other bodies in Great Britain. It is true that these particular honours have been valued very highly. There have been practically uncountable awards of C.B.E.'s, O.B.E.'s and M.B.E.'s, though I hear now that there will be no more of these awarded except to members of the armed forces. One outstanding Canadian is the holder of that great and noble award, the Order of Merit. We have a few who have been made Companions of Honour, and the George Medal has been awarded both to military personnel and civilians.
All these things have added, in their own way, to the character of this nation and its outstanding citizens. Other countries honour their outstanding citizens. I speak now in terms of those who have made names for themselves in the artistic world. While our great neighbour to the south possibly is inclined to reward them in a monetary way -something which is no doubt to their satisfaction-and also with some adulation, which may not be completely to their satisfaction, it seems to me that Canada does nothing for its outstanding sons and daughters. Those who have made names for themselves all too frequently wear foreign decorations, without even the recognition of the United Kingdom and certainly with no recognition from Canada. In fact it would seem the only thing Canada does for its outstanding artists is to feed them to the United States market.
There are a great many persons who come to mind, musicians, painters, sculptors, dramatists, writers and others, and a great many actors and actresses who have made names for themselves not only in the United States but abroad. We have young people who find it impossible to acquire recognition in this country, and certainly impossible to make a living here in their chosen field. They go either to the country to the south or to Europe. Of course, that is for them to decide; but there are great people who stay in Canada, who do wonderful work and pile up for this country great honour and prestige.
One of these great men has just recently been accorded a rare honour. I refer to Dr. Healey Willan, the most famous organist and composer on this continent and one of the greatest in the world. A week or so ago he received from the Archbishop of Canterbury the rare Lambeth degree of doctor of music. He was the only composer not resident


in the United Kingdom who was asked to write a homage anthem for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. We all, as Canadians, I know rejoice in this recognition of a beloved, outstanding Canadian, but I should like to ask the minister if he does not think it is about time that Canada did something for its distinguished citizens.
I am sure that a few years ago Canadians generally thought when the government of this country refused, on behalf of its distinguished citizens, to accept any titles, something would take the place of that recognition of their services. When it was said that the Canada Medal would be awarded under specific circumstances we all believed it. Now it would seem that either through neglect or design this Canada Medal has faded into the fairy tale realm and there is little or no hope of it being awarded or of anything being suggested to take its place. It fills me with great sorrow, Mr. Chairman, when I see persons of the calibre of the great Dr. Willan, who are not recognized in any respect by their own nation.
I trust that the minister will not treat my remarks lightly but will suggest to his colleague that something be done, and soon, to give suitable recognition of Canadian citizens.


Mr. Michener:: I should like to address a few remarks to the minister in his capacity as spokeman for the chief electoral officer.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not going to rule the hon. member out of order, because we are on the departmental item, but if he is going to ask some questions may I point out that there is a separate item under the chief electoral officer and at that time I understand the appropriate officials will be available.


Daniel Roland Michener: My remarks are general. I am not looking for information but I am hoping to give some.


Roch Pinard: Even if they are general, I cannot see how they could relate to the department of the Secretary of State.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am quite prepared, if the minister wishes, to make my remarks when those estimates are being considered, which I take it will be-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Following the
departmental estimates.


John Cameron Pallett: I have one question arising out of the discussion this afternoon. Can the minister inform the house if there is actually in existence an approved design for the Canada Medal and if so where it is?


Roch Pinard: I recall rather faintly that at the time a design was approved. I have even been informed that some time ago some of these medals would have been minted. I cannot give more information than I have; that is all I can give.


John Cameron Pallett: Do I understand that there is presently no approved design that could be examined by any member of this house, or no copy of the medal that could be seen?


Roch Pinard: I think this design appeared in the press some time ago. Perhaps my hon. friend could get some information from the officers of the Royal Canadian Mint.
Mr. Pallet!: This question is not asked without foundation. I have made some inquiries, and I am directing my question to the minister who is responsible.


Roch Pinard: I shall try to look up that and give the information later.


Mr. Regier:: I was pleased to have the minister give the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary the assurance that he will be supplied with information concerning the claims of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin. Quite a number of us regretted the hasty manner in which the assets of these Canadians were seized by the custodian of enemy property. All of us, I am sure, regretted the manner in which those assets were disposed of. As a result of those proceedings many of these Canadians applied for compensation. They applied for redress of their grievances. They claimed they had been very shamefully dealt with, and a goodly number of them received further compensation as a result of a commission that was later set up to investigate these claims.
On the whole the findings of this commission were nothing more nor less than a whitewash of the actions of the custodian of enemy property. However, some of these Canadians did receive awards on their claims. When the minister supplies the information I hope he will also be able to supply us with information as to what action was taken against those Canadians who so shamefully possessed themselves of property belonging to their fellow Canadians. What I have in mind, for example, is that some of this furniture was placed in a large warehouse. The warehouse was broken into, and when it came time to sell the furniture it had all disappeared.
There are actually a number of cases where Canadian citizens obtained property at prices that everyone knew to be away out of line. Were any prosecutions launched against those people who collaborated with one another to
Supply-Secretary of State deprive their fellow Canadian citizens of what they owned? I have in mind even such things as forest holdings. Was any legal action taken against anyone for any of the proceedings in those years?


Roch Pinard: I shall try to obtain this information, which would possibly be available from the Department of Justice, as to whether any prosecutions were launched. I know the matter was fully investigated by a royal commission at the time, and a number of complaints were made afterwards which were then analysed. I do not think I can add very much to what the report contained at the time, but I shall try to obtain information as to whether any legal action was taken by the Department of Justice and inform my hon. friend.
While I am on my feet X would like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Macleod. The Pension Fund Societies Act, section 16, reads as follows:
Every society formed under this act shall at all times when thereunto required by the governor in council or by either house of parliament make a full return of their property and of their receipts and expenditure for such period and with such details and other information as the governor in council or either house of parliament requires.
I am informed that none of these societies has yet been required to report according to the provisions of this section.


John Cameron Pallett: In the first item of the details on page 501 I note that last year there was a confidential messenger at $2,760. This year none is mentioned in the estimates. Can the minister tell us what the functions that confidential messenger performed that are now no longer required to be performed?


Roch Pinard: At one time there was a messenger of my department in the Montreal office, and the position was abolished.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the Chipman case. I noticed the minister showed some reluctance to discuss that case. I personally do not take that view. I think we should discuss public business here. If this is not the place to discuss it I do not know where we should discuss it. It would appear to me that whether it was through slackness in the minister's department, or where it was, the Governor General, because I presume he was involved, and certainly Her Majesty were put in an embarrassing position.
The minister has told us the award was cancelled at the request of the potential recipient himself. What was the statement of the potential recipient, a man who perhaps has made history by refusing the Queen's medal? What did he say as to his particular unworthiness, if indeed he admitted that in this

Supply-Secretary of State particular case? In other words, what was his reason for refusing the medal? Was it fear of attendant publicity?


Roch Pinard: I think the recipient of that award, who has asked permission to have it cancelled, would be. the proper person to indicate why he did that. I suggested before, in dealing with these matters which affect the royal prerogative, I did not think it was in keeping with the high regard in which these decorations are held to speculate as to the reasons which justified the cancellation of the award in this case. All I can say is that the matter was fully investigated and the recipient himself, in order to avoid further controversy, thought it advisable to ask permission to have the award cancelled.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister says the matter was fully investigated. I think this is a case of too little and too late. It seems to me that the time for a thorough investigation into the matter was when the request came from somebody or other that representations should be made to Her Majesty through the Governor General. I would like to know who it was that initiated those proceedings, who it was that recommended to the minister or to his department, for I presume it would go through that channel, that such a request should be made to Her Majesty through His Excellency. On whose recommendation was the whole thing initiated?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should give any more information on that. Whoever makes a recommendation or a representation for the awarding of a decoration of that nature, we consider that information and the matter itself as confidential. The same thing applies to recommendations made by the awards co-ordination committee which considers these requests. The same thing applies to the nature of the recommendation that is then made by the Governor General as well as by the minister in charge of the department.
I do not think my hon. friend should ask for more information than that. I am speaking in a way which I think would indicate that. I would not deny that there is a responsibility somewhere. I am not going to say what was the recommendation or what was the nature of the investigation. All I can say is that it was fully investigated and the recipient of the award decided that, in view of the controversy that had arisen, he would ask permission to have the award cancelled. This request of his was transmitted through the Governor General to Her Majesty, who acceded to the request.
I would think in all sincerity that it would be better to avoid speculation as to what were


the reasons which justified the action on his part and the recommendation on the part of the awards co-ordination committee. I do not think it would serve a useful purpose. I am not going to say the action was taken lightly, either. I simply followed the request made by the recipient of the medal and transmitted his request through the proper channel.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Is the minister satisfied that the medal should have been awarded?


Roch Pinard: I do not think I should be called upon to answer that question.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Surely there must be some responsibility somewhere, Mr. Chairman.


Roch Pinard: There was quite a controversy in the press. Allegations were made. I had the matter fully analysed by the awards co-ordination committee, and I took the recommendation and transmitted it as it was, the recommendation being that the request made by Mr. Chipman be acceded to.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister is talking about speculation. I deny that there is speculation. I am interested in facts, not speculation. I am elected here as an opposition member, and I think it is my business to look into these things. It is the responsibility of the department in which I am interested.


Roch Pinard: I take full responsibility for everything done.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister does?


Roch Pinard: Yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not think the minister has fully answered my question in regard to the investigation which took place. When did it take place? Did it take place when the recommendation was made to the department by the minister that the representation should be made to Her Majesty through the Governor General, or did it take place afterward, when there was some doubt as to whether or not the man would accept the award? Surely before the event rather than after the event was the time the department should have made a full and thorough investigation, and not put Her Majesty and His Excellency in the peculiar position of having been requested to make an award and then come along later and say, "Would it please Your Majesty to cancel the award." The thing is ridiculous.


Roch Pinard: The matter was investigated when the recommendation was first made by the awards co-ordination committee. The recommendation was based on information received from what we considered to be

trustworthy sources. I do not think there could be an investigation of the kind that might be undertaken by the Department of Justice, but the investigation was as careful as it could be. After that investigation had been made there was a recommendation for the award of the medal. The second investigation and recommendation were made by the awards co-ordination committee for cancellation, and that second recommendation I transmitted through the ordinary channels to Her Majesty.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If an investigation was made previous to the event, then the answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North must be in the affirmative. The hon. member asked whether it was the opinion of the minister, who is responsible for the department, that an award should have been granted. The minister did not answer that.


Roch Pinard: I said before that I take full responsibility for what happened on the two occasions.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If the minister is prepared to take full responsibility I suppose that is all we can do about the matter. The minister admits the department was wrong.


Mr. Herridge:: The deputy ministers did not know what they were doing; possibly they were not capable of assessing bravery.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask whether this colossal travesty on the Queen resulted from evidence given under oath? Was evidence taken under oath in support of the application? What is the general system that is followed? I asked the minister a while ago about the committee, and as I remember he said he was the chairman.


Roch Pinard: I did not give a list of the members, but it is made up of representatives of three or four departments.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister give the names of the members of the committee that made this recommendation?


Roch Pinard: I have no objection to doing that.


John George Diefenbaker: This was a serious mistake and it would seem to indicate that there was a slip-up somewhere, a failure on the part of the committee to investigate properly. When the minister is replying would he indicate if there have been other similar incidents?


Roch Pinard: There have been quite a few cases where cancellations have taken place.


John George Diefenbaker: But I am referring to cancellations because of mistakes in the awards. Were those cancellations of the type
Supply-Secretary of State that occurred in the case of Sir Roger Casement who had received certain decorations, including a knighthood, and then became a convicted traitor? An order in council was passed after his conviction removing from him the honours which His Majesty had conferred during the days when he was an administrator of the government of Great Britain and before he launched on a career which ended in his death on the scaffold for treason. In addition to those cases where there have been cancellations because of treasonable activities on the part of the recipients, have there been cases where due to a lack of investigation in peacetime, decorations have been cancelled? If so, would the minister indicate those in his reply?


Roch Pinard: I never said that this cancellation was made because there had been a lack of investigation. I simply said that the matter was investigated by the awards co-ordination committee, which acted on what it considered to be trustworthy and reliable information upon which to base its recommendations. Afterward representations were made, an investigation was launched and the committee came to the conclusion that they ought to agree to the request made by the recipient to have the award cancelled.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were the members of the committee which made the award and of the committee which recommended the cancellation?


Roch Pinard: The same members.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were they?


Roch Pinard: The undersecretary of state as chairman, and there was a representative of the Governor General, of the Department of National Defence, of the Department of Labour, of the Department of Transport and of the dominion archivist. I do not actually have the names.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was chairman.


Roch Pinard: The undersecretary of state.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely you can get the names?


Roch Pinard: I said that I would get the names.


Mr. Philpoif:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that some hon. members on the other side are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in dealing with this obvious mistake. The gentleman who received this award from this government through a mistake which has now been rescinded in the only common sense way in which it could be done has also for the same act of alleged heroism received the Louis Pasteur medal and the Quebec

Supply-Secretary of State safety league medal, and has been nominated for the humane society medal. Every one of those agencies which grant those very cherished awards has machinery for checking its awards. It seems to me that this whole publicity simply proves that even if you take reasonable precautions you can make a mistake from time to time, such as happened this week in London when Her Majesty was inveigled into interviewing a fake holder of the Victoria Cross.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Secretary of State if it is the policy of the awards committee or of the department or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to award medals to members of the R.C.M.P. for outstanding bravery in the performance of their duties?


Roch Pinard: No, I cannot say that there is any such policy. If a request has been made and if a person is entitled to a decoration, surely there would be no objection because he was a member of the R.C.M.P.


Erhart Regier: I understand that some time ago a request was made by various people and organizations, including some members of this house, that an award be given to Corporal Johnstone of British Columbia who in thwarting a bank hold-up absorbed eight of the bandits' shots and in all likelihood saved the lives of a goodly number of people. Instead of an award being granted to him there was great publicity over the fact that he had received a promotion.
Upon investigation I find that he was not given any award at all and that the promotion he received was something he was in line for in any event. The minister admitted to me that he would have received this promotion within six months. It meant an increase of only $25 in his salary, so all the man received by way of award was $150 or six months at $25 per month. To the people of British Columbia that was an insult to the bravery and devotion to duty displayed by this man. If they were going to give him only $150 they should not have bothered giving him anything. The public might have organized and given some recognition of this man's services in the maintenance of law and order.


Roch Pinard: What I can say is that the R.C.M.P. officer to whom my hon. friend refers may have been deserving of the decoration if he fell within the application of the cases where this award is made, in other words if he performed an act of heroism in saving or attempting to save a human life. But I was informed that the case was never referred to the awards co-ordination committee.
[Mr. Philpott.l


Erhart Regier: In that case I must put on record that the member for Burnaby-Richmond has been getting some cheap publicity, because he appeared on the scene of the accident almost as soon as the police were there. He went on the air and announced to all and sundry that he would see to it that a recommendation would be made that this man be suitably rewarded by a decoration granted by the government. I think that is one of the cheapest political tactics I have ever seen a Liberal member resort to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
410. Bureau for translations, $1,162,016.
Mr. Pallet!: This item should not go by without some comment. In the minister's report for the year ended March 31, 1955, under "Important publications" on page 29,
it says:
The bureau was called upon to translate several lengthy books and documents, of a scientific nature for the most part, for specialized agencies. Among these are the following:
"The Key to the Devonian Tetracols",
"Pisciculture and Biology",
"Outline of the Yalsutal Economy",
"Veterinary Medicine",
"The Cephalopods in the Swedish Cretaceous System",
"Type and Origin of Chromite Deposits" . . .
These are under the general heading, "Important publications". I wonder whether the minister would enlarge on the translations of these bocks and tell us for whom they were prepared and particularly to whom they were important.
Roch Pinard: The bureau for translations, according to the act, is servicing the departments of government and translates whatever publications are referred to the bureau by the different departments. Whether the actual publications to which my hon. friend has referred are important and to whom they are important are matters that were decided solely by the departments concerned.


John Cameron Pallett: Am I correct in understanding that these are translations only for other departments?


Roch Pinard: Yes.
Mr. Pallet!: No outside organizations?


Roch Pinard: No, they are simply done for the departments.


Mr. Small:: Under translations you have an appropriation of quite a large amount. I have not added it up. Last year there were about 106 translators, and this year you have 193. Then in your supplementary estimates you have provision for 20 more translators. Are they additions to the staff?


Roch Pinard: Yes. I might say this regarding these new appointments. In so far as the main estimates are concerned, there are eight new positions. Two of these positions are simply transfers of two translators from the Senate to the bureau for translations; they are not new positions. In other words, they existed under the administration of the Senate and they were transferred, according to the act, to the bureau for translations. There are six positions requested owing to normal increase in work as a result of the requests received from different departments.
In the supplementary estimates there are 20 new positions, which are required as follows. There are six new positions created in the pool to translate publications from English to French, with a view to helping the simultaneous issue of English and French versions of federal publications when this is requested by departments of government. There are also ten positions in a number of departmental divisions in order to meet the increased demand for translation from English to French and from French to English. There are also four positions in the foreign languages division for Russian translation, which has greatly increased recently, and to provide the Department of External Affairs with interpreters for visits of Russian officials to Canada.
I mention this information in regard to the bureau for translations, but I repeat that this bureau is simply servicing the departments according to their needs. The needs have been such that consideration was given to increasing the staff according to the figures I have just given.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to ask the minister whether the bureau for translations lends some of its men to the Department of National Revenue in connection with the censorship of foreign language books, or does the Department of National Revenue have its own translators employed on that work?


Roch Pinard: The only thing that is done as far as our department is concerned is that they have translators who work on the premises in each department when they are asked to do so, but I again say that their work is distributed by the superintendent of translations, that is, the work that is being received from each department. It varies each year. There has been an accumulation of work during recent months and during recent years which justifies the superintendent in asking for further assistance.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Are these people connected with the production of Hansard in any way, in doing the translation from one official language to another?
Supply-Secretary of State


Roch Pinard: Yes. The debates branch refers to the bureau for translating the work to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
704. Bureau for translations-further amount required, $62,700.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: There is a supplementary item, 704, for bureau for translations. Shall this item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
413.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $26,385.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I expect that I should know what this is, but I wonder whether the minister would explain to me what that contribution to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works is.


Roch Pinard: This is a contribution made by Canada to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works. This union has been in existence for quite some time. Canada is a member of the union, and the contribution is a yearly one decided by the union itself. This year there has been a small increase.


Colin Cameron: Is it an international organization?


Roch Pinard: Yes, it is an international organization. This year the contribution of Canada, as the contribution of other members, has been increased, and we have agreed because the increase was overdue. It is the result of additional expenditures in the office of the union.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
414.	To provide for special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act and other related legislation, $20,000.
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Could the minister tell us about the progress of the royal commission on patents and copyrights? I see that the vote is much less than last year. Does this mean that the commission has almost finished its work?


Roch Pinard: As I have already said, the commission expects to complete its work in the course of next year. I was given the impression last year that they might have a chance of finishing this year, but they will not. It is expected that they will complete their work probably in the summer of 1957.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Perhaps the minister could tell us whether that includes trade marks and copyrights.

Supply-Secretary of State


Roch Pinard: It includes everything.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is an item about which I am a little curious, in the public accounts for the year 1955, for the Secretary of State, on page XX-5. It shows an item of $11,880 for secretarial services of A. M. Laidlaw. This was about half the amount that was expended during that year. Can the minister tell us who Mr. Laidlaw is, what his work entailed, and whether this amount is for one year or is it a backlog to pay for services for several years? It is such a large amount that I think we should have some information.


Roch Pinard: I will get the information in a moment. Mr. Laidlaw is secretary of the Ilsley commission. I am just trying to obtain the information with respect to whether that covers only his yearly salary. I am informed that it does.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Do I gather from the minister's remarks that is his salary for the year, or does it include salary plus expenses or something of that nature?


Roch Pinard: He is paid on a per diem basis and that is only his salary. I have now been informed that it also takes care of the payment of his stenographer, and that makes the difference. That includes the payment of the salary of his secretary.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In other words, while the figure of $11,880 is shown in the public accounts to be for secretarial services of Mr. A. M. Laidlaw it actually includes Mr. Laidlaw's salary plus the salary of his secretary as well?


Roch Pinard: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How often does this commission sit and how long-


Roch Pinard: I am also informed that the figure includes his travelling expenses whenever he has to travel for any reason whatever in connection with the work of the commission.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not wish to pursue the matter any further, but I wonder whether at some future time the minister could give us information breaking down the amount into salary, travelling expenses and his secretary's salary.


Roch Pinard: I shall be glad to do that.


Robert Hardy Small: Reverting to item 412, last year there was considerable complaint about the issuing of patents. Is there any improvement this year with respect to the backlog? Has it been cleaned up?


Roch Pinard: I think it may be useful for me to give certain information on that point,


and I am pleased that the hon. member has raised the question. The situation has improved to some extent. Although the backlog of applications has increased to a certain extent this year, this is due to the great increase in the number of applications for patents. As of April 1, 1956, there were pending in the patent office 72,608 cases, an increase of 2,892 over last year. I might say that last year the backlog of cases amounted to 69,716. Applications received this year have reached a figure of 21,048, of which 14,505 applications have been allowed and 3,651 have been abandoned, leaving 2,892 which have been added to the pending cases in the department.
This would look as if the situation has further deteriorated, but it has not, because it is important to note this fact. The waiting period for an application to be examined has been cut down by a considerable margin. As an example, where there were over 15,000 applications which were two and a half years old and not processed in any way on April 1, 1955, there are only 8,575 such applications in the office at the present time. The department expects that by the end of the year it will be possible to reduce the waiting period to two and a half years. I may say that in the United States the delay is longer than that. It is about three and a half years there before the application for a patent is dealt with and a patent awarded or the application rejected.
It may also be of interest to my hon. friend to note this fact. More than 90 per cent of the applications for patents come from non-Canadian applicants. Over 70 per cent come from the United States and quite a proportion from the United Kingdom, France and other countries. About 5 per cent to 6 per cent of these applications originate from Canadian applicants. I mention this fact because it may be of interest to note this point. Since it takes approximately three and a half years to process an application in the United States, applicants are not anxious to have their applications dealt with in Canada before they are dealt with in the United States, and in many cases all they do here is to mark time until the application in the United States has been disposed of.
The result has been an increase in the backlog, which has been quite considerable; but it is not a situation that can be corrected because, as I said before, over 90 per cent of these applications come from hon-Canadian residents. In other words, these applications come from other countries. I am told the situation is the same with respect to the

United Kingdom. An applicant for a Canadian patent will wait until such time as his application in the United Kingdom has been disposed of.
I do not know if I make myself clear, but I want to say that it is not in reality a real backlog of Canadian applications. Ninety per cent of these 72,000 applications are applications made by non-residents, and there is not very much we can do about it. If we were to say that we would try to process them more rapidly, then the applicant, being interested in having his application dealt with only when the corresponding application has been dealt with in the other country, would use every possible procedure to delay it, and as a request or an application for a patent for an invention can be amended as often as one wishes the result is that the delay is something we cannot do very much about. I want to mention this because in spite of this condition we find that this year we have cut down by a considerable amount the period of delay between the time the application is made and the time it is dealt with.
I also want to say that I have taken up this matter with both the civil service commission and treasury board in order to try to obtain assistance, and I did get some assistance. From April to June of this year we expect that we will have added nine new engineers and eight technical officers to the staff, with the result that the situation will again improve. I mention that because it has been very difficult to obtain assistance. The problem is not only one of salary but of a scarcity of engineers, not being able to secure enough engineers.
The civil service commission and treasury board have agreed to accept our recommendation that technical officers be appointed who are now examiners in order to do that job, and these technical officers do not need to be graduate officers. All they have to have is three years of engineering study, or be bachelors of science. Then they are accepted as assistants to patent examiners. For the first time I think we have made real progress in increasing the staff to an extent that will,
I hope, enable the applications to be dealt with more rapidly.
I mention this with the reservation I have made before, namely that the situation is largely due to the fact that the applicants, being also applicants for patents in foreign countries, do not insist on having their applications dealt with in Canada before they are dealt with in the country of origin.


Robert Hardy Small: It is an improvement over last year, the fact that you have increased your staff. That seemed to be the difficulty last
Supply-Secretary of State year. There was also another complaint or request that was made by the commissioner who said that there was insufficient space for him to do his work properly. Has that situation been improved?


Roch Pinard: Yes, I can say that situation has been improved also. The Queen's printer has vacated space which it is expected the patent division will now use. I do not think the problem of space exists now. This move will take place in about two months.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I think the picture could be clearer if the minister at some time could tell us what is the average delay between the filing of the applications and the first reports on cases. It is a fact that after the first report has been filed the case is really out of the hands of the patent office and delays are due mainly to replies to be made by the applicants themselves. Still I would be interested if the minister could give us at some time a picture as to the average delay between the filing of the application and the first report of the examiner, because after that his department has no control over any delay.


Roch Pinard: With the experience my hon. friend has in these matters I think he knows as well as I do that I cannot give a definite answer to that question. This report varies according to practically each case. The first report is never made in the same manner and at the same time. It depends on each application, which is dealt with on its merits. There is no fixed date at which a first report can be made.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I do not mean that. I mean how long does it take a case to reach an examiner for examination? There must be an average. I am sure the commissioner would know that.


Roch Pinard: I can say this. I have already said that before the report is actually made it takes about two and a half years. It was more than that before. Of course there can be an exchange of information before that. Before the actual final report is made it takes two and a half years.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am not talking about the final report. I am talking about the first report. When does the examiner get the case?


Roch Pinard: I do not know what my hon. friend would call the exchange of correspondence between the agent of the applicant and the department. If one of these letters can be called a report, there are a number of reports made, as my hon. friend well knows, and I know he knows.

Supply-Secretary of State


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am trying to be helpful to the minister and I hope he takes this question properly, because I am going to tell him that it does not take so long to get the first report from the examiner. The average is much closer to eight or nine months, when it is up to the attorney to answer the patent office's report. The average attorney, as he just said, may wait from a month to six months to reply or obtain further delay. I am trying to justify the position of the patent office by stating the fact that the examiners now are in a position to answer within eight or nine months after an application is filed, in most classes of subjects.


Roch Pinard: Yes, I agree with that. That has cut the margin to two and a half years before the procedure is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the chief electoral officer-
57. Salaries and expenses of office, $68,645.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Hon. members will find this item on page 11, with the details commencing at page 142.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. It relates to the conflict between voting days and days of religious observance. The hon. member for Spadina was personally involved in this problem in the by-election in Spadina for which he was nominated, and he himself would have raised it today had he not been unavoidably absent. However, it affects all hon. members in some degree and it certainly affects my constituents, because I have a number of constituents of the Jewish faith, which is the principal religious faith outside of the Christian faiths.
I think the problem was pointed up by the regrettable-if I may use that word-event in connection with the last by-election when, as I recall it, the election writs were issued for September 26 which turned out to be one of the principal Jewish religious days, namely the day of atonement. In the case of two by-elections I believe a new date was fixed, October 24.
It seems to me that is a matter which could very simply be avoided in the future, and I have two suggestions to make to the minister. We of course successfully avoid having elections on Sunday.


Roch Pinard: I agree with that.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is an extension of that principle which might be applied by an amendment to section 21 of the Canada Elections Act to provide that neither a general election nor a by-election may be called or

held on specified holy days regarded as such by the people of the Christian faith or the Jewish faith. I mention only those faiths. It may be that when this matter came to be dealt with some further inquiry might be made to see whether there were others who were entitled to have their religious observances respected. I cannot think of any offhand. Certainly one does not suggest that all days of religious observance should be excluded. However, I think a calendar could easily be prepared and be inserted in the act which would meet the reasonable requirements which were overlooked in the instances I have cited.
Another approach to the question would be that which has been adopted in some of the states of the union. I cite the legislation in California. I have a copy of the 1955 assembly bill No. 1760. The bill provides that one who will be unable to go to his polling place on election day by reason of the fact that the tenets of his religion require his attendance at church or religious services on that day or otherwise prevent him from attending at the polls will be classified as an absent voter as defined in the act, and he is entitled to vote at other polls. There they vote by mail, actually. But making an advance poll available would be a solution. Similar legislation is found in some of the other states such as Michigan and Minnesota.
I daresay the problem has been dealt with in many places in different ways. I rather prefer the idea of a calendar, because the solution of using an advance poll would prevent the people involved from taking part in the normal activities of election day and one would not want to deprive anybody of those pleasures.
I therefore commend this problem to the minister. I know he has been thinking about it. I notice that there is no legislation on the matter this session. However, I think it is worthy of notice, particularly as it has come to our attention notably and I hope he will find a solution along one or other of these lines, or something which is perhaps even better which he may devise.


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to say a few words while we are discussing this item of the estimates concerning the continuing problem, under our present election act, of the number of Canadian citizens who still find themselves disfranchised on election day. As the minister will recall, earlier this session my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced one proposal which was designed to meet a part of this problem. The minister did not see fit to accept the particular proposal contained in that bill. However, so far as I am concerned even if he had agreed

to the proposal tor a wider application of the principle of advance polls, there would still remain, in at least certain sections of Canada, quite a substantial number of the electorate who would find themselves completely disfranchised through no fault of their own.
I am thinking particularly of those sections of our population who are engaged in some of the primary production industries, fishermen, loggers and people of that kind, who normally work in some of the more isolated parts of the country. Many of them have a place of residence in one place and are normally working in another. I think perhaps I can best illustrate the problem by referring to a specific situation which arises in the coastal areas of British Columbia whenever an election is held during the summer; June, July or August, whenever it may come. Under the provisions of the act enumeration of the electors takes place at a certain time, and for the purposes of the forthcoming election the people who are then enumerated are the voters at a certain polling area. Then under certain circumstances they may suddenly find that this no longer is their place of residence. This happens, for example, when we have a fire season closure of the coastal areas in British Columbia. At such time virtually the whole population of our large logging camps, which may amount to 400 or 500 working people, are forced to leave that place of residence where they were enumerated and return to some larger centre such as Vancouver, thus finding that on election day they have no opportunity whatever of casting their ballots. That situation, of course, also applies to a large percentage of the fishermen on the coast of British Columbia if the election takes place during the fishing season.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time I have raised this problem in the house. It is one, so far as I am concerned, that should be dealt with in some satisfactory way. Actually the only feasible way I have been able to think of for dealing with it would be by the introduction into our election act of the absentee vote. I realize there may be a great many practical difficulties in the way of the introduction of the absentee vote into our federal elections act, particularly if it were to have application across the whole country. However, I do feel it could be written into the act in a form that would apply at least within the boundaries of a given province. Then if any resident of British Columbia found himself on election day in some other constituency in British Columbia, an arrangement could be worked out whereby he would be entitled to go in a polling place in the area
Supply-Secretary of State in which he found himself and cast a ballot for a candidate in the constituency where he had been enumerated.
I believe that would be a practical proposition. I think possibly it could be done in such a way that the principle of the absentee ballot could apply in any province where such a provision was already in the provincial election act, and where people would be accustomed to exercising their ballot in that manner.
I know, and probably the minister does, that we have had that principle in the election act of British Columbia for a good many years. Apart from the rather unhappy period when we had the single transferable vote in our provincial election act, the absentee ballot has functioned satisfactorily so far as I have been able to learn. I bring this matter up because I do feel it is something to which the minister and the chief electoral officer should be giving serious consideration.
The number of people who may be disfranchised can vary materially from election to election. Under certain conditions hundreds or thousands of Canadian citizens in a province like British Columbia could be disfranchised through no fault of their own. If one of the logging camps I have mentioned closes down, it means the living accommodation and the cook houses close down as well. These men, whether or not they have any desire to stay in order to exercise their franchise, are compelled to leave. I feel that is a situation which certainly warrants much more serious consideration than it appears to have received up to the present time.


John Cameron Pallett: There are three points only that I should like to mention to the Secretary of State on the matter of elections. I would leave them with him for his consideration. The first point relates to the hours of polling set out in the election act. I know that the act was before a committee and was not changed, but I think any act should be the subject of study and revision. There was a member of that committee, who has now gone to the other place, who was rather outspoken about any change at all being made.
I suggest to the minister that the polls should not close at six o'clock but at seven o'clock, whether it be standard or daylight saving time. I feel this would give an opportunity to many people to vote who by reason of not being able to get home, particularly in suburban ridings of the city, cannot cast their ballots. I understand that time for voting is provided in the act, but very often that is hard to get. Many of the provinces have adopted a freer advance poll than is provided for in the federal act. Some have gone so

Supply-Secretary of State far as to say that if you are going to leave your riding for any reason you may vote at an advance poll.
I would suggest that serious consideration be given to that. After all, it is a person's right to vote, but he also has the necessity of making a living. You have the right and duty to vote as opposed to the necessity of making a living. A man must make a living, but he may wish to exercise his right to vote. I think the problem would be resolved if some provision could be made for allowing anyone who is out of his riding on election day to vote at an advance poll.
My next suggestion, sir, is this. There are many people who are physically unable to vote on election day. I refer to those who are inmates of hospitals, old people's homes and similar institutions.
This may be an unusual suggestion but I have no doubt it has been made before in this house, that some provision be made for a sort of travelling poll under supervision so that inmates of hospitals-


Roch Pinard: It does exist under section 45.


John Cameron Pallett: It is not observed in all constituencies nor in all areas. If the provision is there and is not being carried out, then I would direct the discrepancy to the minister and say that it is not being carried out in all areas where there are hospitals, and many inmates of hospitals are being effectively deprived of the opportunity of voting. I would bring it to the minister's attention.
I have only one further question to direct to the minister, sir. Does he expect that the chief electoral officer will be a little busier than usual this year?


Mr. Marler:: The hon. member would be scared by that, I should think.


Mr. Monteiih:: Before this item carries, will the minister explain what the commissionaire services at $7,365 for 1956-57 are to cover?


Roch Pinard: They were formerly paid by the Department of Justice, and it has now been decided to have them paid by the chief electoral officer.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just exactly what are they?


Roch Pinard: They are the corps of commissionaires who are on duty on election day after hours or rather, they look after the building occupied by the chief electoral officer after office hours when the need exists. They were formerly paid out of the appropriation of the Department of Justice. They are now paid by the chief electoral officer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IMr. Pallett.]
Civil service commission-
84. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $2,599,117.
Mr. Brooks:: This item appears on page 15 of the book of estimates and has to do with the civil service commission. I know there are some hon. members who wish to say something on this item, and I do not think it should be put through so quickly.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the hon. member wish to speak on item 84?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would not mind saying a few words.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand that item 337 is carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Royal on item 84.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is item 84 that I was interested in. Is that the one you are calling?


William Alfred Robinson: For the information of hon. members, this item deals with the civil service commission. It appears on page 15 and the details commence at page 165.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to call attention to what I thought was a discrepancy or an anomalous situation in connection with some of the advertisements of competitions sent out by the civil service commission. I have noted this at different times, but I noted it particularly the other day when I received two of those notices in the same mail. I refer to competition No. 56-745, labour legislation analyst. The initial salary is $3,180, which can go up to $3,780. The qualifications for this particular position are graduation from a university of recognized standing, preferably with specialization in English history or political science. In the same mail I received notice of competition No. 56-378 for a geological lapidary technician. The initial salary is $4,050 and the maximum is $4,500. The qualifications are elementary school education with additional credits for further academic training.
The point I wish to make is that in one instance they were asking for a college graduate who must know something about labour laws and who specialized in English history or political science. The initial salary is $3,180. In the second instance, competition No. 56-378, the initial salary is $4,050. All the qualifications required are an elementary school education.
As I say, it seems to me there is a great discrepancy between the salaries for these two positions. One requires simply an elementary education and the other a college

education. Is there any co-ordination among the different departments in the matter of establishing salaries for these different positions? It does seem to me that a situation like this is very poor encouragement to sending boys and girls to college, when a boy with an elementary education can start in with an initial salary of nearly $1,000 above that of a boy with a college education.


Roch Pinard: Whether there would be a real co-ordinating agency of some kind in the civil service commission which would deal with these differences in salaries suggested at different times I do not know, but there is a study made of salaries paid by the different departments to different categories of civil servants. I know that is a fact because it often happens that I myself raise the point with the commission as to why this salary is paid to a civil servant in one department and that salary is paid to another in some other department. 1 say
Supply-Secretary of State that there is always careful study given to that by the commission and I am sure also by the treasury board. If my hon. friend would like to send me the copies of the notices I shall be pleased to look into it and see what the answer would be to his question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is six o'clock. Perhaps the information can be given to me when the item comes up again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with these estimates and then take those of mines and technical surveys and veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5670
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 535
Mr. Robichaud:: What protection is offered the consumer of shellfish in respect to sanitary quality?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
The sanitary quality of shellfish offered for sale in Canada is safeguarded by the efforts of several agencies.
Among the major responsibilities of the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare are:
the certification of approved shellfish producers;
the supervision of processing plants to ensure compliance with acceptable standards; and
the vigilant surveillance of producing areas with respect to sanitary conditions likely to affect the bacteriological quality of the water overlaying the shellfish beds.
The weekly reports on tests made on shellfish from key areas are carefully scrutinized and action is taken to have areas closed if this is warranted. Samples for these tests are collected by the Department of Fisheries and tested by the laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
All these measures form part of a program designed for the protection of the consumer of Canadian shellfish here and in the United States. The Canadian consumer of shellfish imported from the United States is similarly protected by a rigid control program maintained by the producing states and supervised by the United States department of health, education and welfare under an agreement between that department and the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare covering mutually acceptable control measures.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
407.	Departmental administration, $244,775.
408.	Companies division, $91,500.
409.	Trade marks division, including a contribution of $3,800 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $176,360.
410.	Bureau of translations, $1,162,016.
704. Bureau for translations-further amount required, $62,700.
Patent and copyright office-
411.	Administration division, $127,225.
412.	Patent division, $1,209,633.
413.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $26,385.
Special-
414.	To provide for special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act and other related legislation, $20,000.
Office of the chief electoral officer-
57. Salaries and expenses of office, $68,645.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 5, 1956

[Stage Direction]
Second and final report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Boisvert.