[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon.
members are aware, the people of Newfoundland some months ago elected a national convention for the purpose of making recommendations to the government of the United Kingdom as to possible forms of the future government of Newfoundland. Subsequently the question of the form of government to be adopted is to be placed before the people of Newfoundland in a referendum.
As announced in this house on April 2 last by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), the government of Canada has agreed to receive a delegation from the Newfoundland convention to consider and discuss whether there is, in the opinion of all concerned, a fair and equitable basis for federal union of Newfoundland with Canada. Arrangements have now been made to begin discussions on Wednesday, June 25. The delegation will arrive in Ottawa tomorrow. We are happy to have the opportunity of welcoming the delegation on that day since June 24 is being observed this year as the 450th anniversary of the discovery of the island.
It will be recalled that, following the disastrous economic collapse in 1920-30, Newfoundland encountered serious financial difficulties. In 1933, with the approval of the government and legislature of Newfoundland, a royal commission was appointed by the United Kingdom government to inquire into the situation. The commission recommended that responsible government should be suspended and legislative and executive authority be vested in an appointed commission, responsible to the United Kingdom government, until

such time as the island should again become self-supporting. It was also recommended that meanwhile the United Kingdom should assume financial responsibility for the government of the islandi. These recommendations were approved by the Newfoundland legislature and by the United Kingdom parliament. The Newfoundland constitution was accordingly suspended and a commission of government was appointed by the United Kingdom government and assumed office in 1934.
Shortly after the commission was established, most of the Newfoundland debt, which in 1934 stood at about a $100 million, with relatively high interest rates, was converted to a sterling issue at three per cent guaranteed by the United Kingdom as to principal and interest. The United Kingdom also advanced considerable sums for developmental purposes, and up to 1939 met budget deficits totalling over $16 million.
Beginning in 1941, Newfoundland experienced a remarkable recovery. This was due in part to the heavy defence expenditures in Newfoundland and Labrador by Canada and the United States, and in part to the rise in prices of Newfoundland's principal exports, fish and newsprint. Since 1941, Newfoundland has had an annual surplus now amounting to about $29 million. In addition, Newfoundland's debt has been reduced to about $74 million; the public services have been expanded and improved. Revenues which in 1939 were just over $12 million reached $37 million in 1946.
In December 1945 the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs of the United Kingdom announced that in order "to enable the people of Newfoundland to come to a free and informed decision. . . on their future form of government" a national convention would be elected in Newfoundland in the spring of 1946. The terms of reference of the convention are as follows:
To consider and discuss amongst themselves, as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the island since 1934, and, bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum.
It will be seen from the terms of reference that the convention does not itself have authority to decide Newfoundland's future form of government. The convention is empowered merely to make recommendations to the United Kingdom government as to possible forms of future government. It is

Newfoundland
conceivable that the convention may recommend one form, or alternative forms. In any event, whatever form or forms of government are recommended', the decision as to its acceptance is to be left to the people of Newfoundland themselves.
The convention, except for short periods of adjournment, has now been meeting continuously since September last. With a view to reaching an informed opinion on Newfoundland's economic and financial position, the convention has completed exhaustive inquiries into various phases of Newfoundland's economy, and its progress under the commission of government. The convention has come now to the second stage of its inquiry, namely a consideration of Newfoundland's constitutional future. In May of the present year a delegation from the convention visited the United Kingdom to seek information concerning the financial and fiscal arrangements which might be expected to exist between the United Kingdom and Newfoundland' under alternative forms of future government. That delegation has reported1 to the convention.
The delegation which will arrive in Ottawa tomorrow will consist of Hon. F. G. Bradley, K.C., who led the delegation to London, and six other members of the convention. The six other members of the delegation to Ottawa were not members of the London delegation. They are Mr. J. R. Smallwood, secretary of the delegation; Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne, Mr. C. H. Ballam, Rev. L. Burry, Mr. P. W. Crummey, and Mr. G. F. Higgins, K.C.
I have asked the following members of the government to act as a committee to meet with the delegation from Newfoundland: the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Fisheries and the leader of the government in the Senate.
An atmosphere of mutual friendliness and understanding will, I am sure, characterize the forthcoming discussions. The peoples of Canada and of Newfoundland are closely associated through strong and enduring ties. We owe a common allegiance to the crown and have a common heritage of British political and legal institutions. We have many close personal, professional and commercial associations. We are neighbours in a North American environment. We face many common problems. We have memories of dangers shared and victories won together. These associations afford a broad basis for full and
frank discussion of many of the considerations of which, in the event of union, account would have to be taken by both countries.
The Newfoundland delegates, having, with their colleagues in the convention, studied intensively the problems and prospects of Newfoundland, will be able to throw much light on the questions to be explored. They will have an opportunity to learn at first hand about the working of the Canadian federal system and will thus be in a better position to advise their colleagues on what would be involved for their country in the event of union. As a result of the discussions the Canadian people also will be in a better position to appreciate what would be involved for Canada were Newfoundland to become a province. The Newfoundland delegation will report their views of the situation to the national convention. It will remain for the convention to recommend to the government of the United Kingdom whether the question of union with Canada should be referred to the people of Newfoundland for a decision.
The question of Newfoundland's future form of government is of course one for the people of Newfoundland themselves to decide. It is not a matter in which either the people of Canada or the government of Canada would wish to interfere. Should the question become a matter of referendum, whatever the decision might be, it would be received by the government and people of Canada with understanding and good will.
On the part of Canada no final decision would of course be taken without the approval of parliament. Section 146 of the British North America Act makes provision for procedure in the event of the admission of Newfoundland to the union. So far as Canada is concerned, the action provided for in this section is an address by both houses of parliament.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief observation with respect to the announcement just made by the Prime Minister. I am sure all hon. members are pleased to learn about the visit to Canada of a representative delegation from the island of Newfoundland. I am sure also the Canadian people will welcome this delegation and will wish for it every success in its mission to this and other lands. Speaking for this party I would say that we hope as a result of their visit here that common ground will be found which will result in mutual advantage both to Canada and to Newfound-
Questions

land. If there is any way in which the official opposition can be useful in these discussions during the next few days, let me assure the Prime Minister that we shall be at the service of the government in this respect.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Could the Prime Minister say whether an opportunity will be given to hon. members generally to meet the delegation of Newfoundlanders who are to arrive in Ottawa shortly? Hon. members may wish to discuss common problems which affect Canada and Newfoundland.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be happy to inform the members of the delegation that one of the rooms in these buildings has been placed at their disposal so that should they wish to have the pleasure of meeting hon. members, arrangements can be made to that end. With the assistance of His Honour the Speaker we will try to have something worked out which will be satisfactory.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I table copy of order in council P.C. 2052, of June 19, 1947, appointing Mr. C. A. L. Murchison, K.C., of Ottawa, a member of the unemployment insurance commission, succeeding Mr. G. W. Ritchie. This appointment is for a term of five years from June 1, 1947.
I table also copy of order in council P.C. 1980 of June 19, 1947, appointing the following persons as members of the unemployment insurance advisory committee, to hold office for a period of five years: chairman, Doctor W. A. Mackintosh, Kingston; alternate chairman, Mr. Arthur MacNamara, Ottawa; members:	Mr. Percy Bengough, Ottawa; Mr. George Burt, Windsor; Mr. Romeo Vallee, Sherbrooke, Quebec; Mr. Joseph A. Boivin, Montreal, Quebec; Mr. James Hunter, Toronto; Mr. William S. Lavers, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
(Translation):



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with
the Clerk of the house, resolutions and petitions from the council of the corporation of the county of Two Mountains, and from the

council of the parish and village of St. Frangois de Sales, county of Laval, protesting against the dismemberment of the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains.
Those resolutions and petitions were carried unanimously by the seventeen mayors of the county of Two Mountains and by the council of St. Francois de Sales, and they have been endorsed in compliance with standing order 68.
(Text):



STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. 0. BERTRAND (Prescott) moved that the sixth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Friday, June 20, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. ARCHIBALD:: 1.	Has the warehouse, now being occupied by War Assets Corporation in Prince Rupert, been sold or leased?
2.	If so, to whom?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PUBLIC WORKS-POST OFFICE BUILDINGS- SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many post office buildings were erected in Canada during 1946?
2.	What number was constructed in Saskatchewan?
3.	Where are these buildings located?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1. None.
.2. None.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 5*


EUROPEAN PEACE TERMS-PROPOSALS OF U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. CHURCH:: Has the government been consulted on the proposals of the Hon. Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State of the United States of America, for the settlement of European peace terms and economic matters outside the scope of the united nations organization, and on the statement in support of that plan by the Right Hon. Mr. Bevin, in the House of Commons on June 10?

Orders for Returns
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government has not been asked by either the government of the United States of America or of the United Kingdom, for an expression of views on the proposals made by the Hon. George C. Marshall, United States Secretary of State, in his address at Harvard university on June 5, concerning the requirements for the rehabilitation of Europe. The government has, however, been following developments in this regard with great interest and is in receipt of detailed information on this subject both from its representatives in London and Washington and from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Have arrangements been entered into by the government to bring to Canada German scientists and technicians?
2.	If so, what number or numbers does the government intend to bring to Canada under any such agreement or agreements?
3.	What arrangements have been made by the government to provide necessary transportation for them?
4.	Has any steamship company agreed to supply the necessary transportation for any such group or number of Germans to come to Canada?
5.	What is the estimated cost to Canada of such transportation?
6.	What is the size and passenger accommodation of the ship or ships proposed by the Canadian Steamship Company, to be made available for the transportation of these Germans?
7.	At what date is it expected, the first group or number will sail for Canada?
8.	How long a period of time will these Germans be allowed to stay in this country?
9.	In what age groups are those being brought to Canada?
10.	Will they be returned to Germany at the conclusion of their contract?
11.	In the event of any of those Germans desiring to stay in Canada following the end of their contract will provision be made to allow them to do so?
12.	In the event of any of them being granted leave to stay longer, or later granted a landing certificate as an immigrant, will the time of their first entry be considered as the date of their entry as an immigrant?
13.	Have any steps been taken to bring to Canada any scientists or technicians from Great Britain?
14.	Have any steps been taken to assist in the transportation to Canada of any of the great numbers of persons from the British isles who desire to come to this country?
15.	What is the number of applications now on file at Canada House in London from persons living in Great Britain, who desire to come to Canada?
16.	Would it be possible for the government to make some provision for transportation for persons in Great Britain desiring to come to Canada similar to that made by the government for persons from Germany or Europe?
17.	If so, will steps be taken to do so?
18.	Have any requests or suggestions been made to the government against the bringing to *Canada persons from Great Britain?


EXPORTS OF CLASS II WHEAT
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	To what countries has Canada made sales of class II wheat?
2.	What amounts were sold to each of these countries?


Mr. McCANN:: Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-TALKS TO SERVICE CLUBS OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Have any employees of the national film board given talks to members of service clubs, or other organizations, in Canada during 1946 and 1947?
2.	If so, what are the names of employees and organizations which they addressed?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



VETERANS LAND ACT-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. ARGUE:: How many veterans have been settled on farms under the Veterans' Land Act in each of the rural municipalities and local improvement districts in Saskatchewan?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What has been the total expended in Canada by the P.F.'R.A. branch of the Department of Agriculture, since its inception?
2.	How much of this expenditure has been in (a) province of Saskatchewan; (b) province of Alberta?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, cables, orders in council and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any officer thereof and,the governments of Great Britain, Australia and the United States of America, or from General MacArthur and the Right Hon. Dr. Evatt of Australia, in relation to the proposed peace treaty with Japan. Also any correspondence with respect to the rebuilding the textile industry in Japan to a pre-war standard, as proposed by the United States of America.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the draft treaty on the disarmament and demilitarization of Japan, which the United1 States government released for publication on June 21, 1946, any proposals with regard to the Japanese peace settlement
Inquiries of the Ministry

that may have been exchanged between the Canadian government and the United States government or governments of other nations of the British commonwealth were on an exploratory basis and are confidential in nature and could not be published.
With respect to the Japanese textile industry, I would point out that this is one of the matters studied by the Far Eastern Commission in Washington, on which Canada is represented. As hon. members know, that is a commission composed1 of representatives of eleven nations. By agreement they are treating their deliberations as confidential. We could not make public the reports received by us from our representative. There is the report of the Japanese mission on the textile industry, which I should be glad to make available to the hon. member, together with a copy of the United States government's proposed treaty of June 21, 1946. There are many matters which I should be glad to show the hon. member in confidence. He will see that we could not table them for publication. Under the circumstances I suggest that the hon. member might be prepared to allow the motion to drop. If after he has seen these files he thinks there is something further we can make available for publication, perhaps he could renew his motion.
Motion dropped.



SNOW LAKE, MAN., MINING ROAD

Mr. MOORE:: For a copy of the agreement between the Manitoba government and the federal government under which the Snow Lake mining road is to be completed?



GRIMSHAW-GREAT SLAVE LAKE, ALTA., ROAD

Ronald Stewart Moore: For a copy of the agreement between the Alberta government and the federal government under which the Grimshaw-Great Slave lake road is to be completed?



AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT-POTATOES

Mr. HATFIELD:: For a copy of a resolution moved by the Minister of Agriculture in the province of New Brunswick, and all correspondence which passed between the provincial minister and the federal Minister of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture, regarding a fair price on potatoes under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.



EXPORT OP POTATOES

Heber Harold Hatfield: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between exporters of potatoes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the Agricultural prices support board or Department of Agriculture regarding export of potatoes.



MARIAN CONGRESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my fellow members of parliament the wonderful devotion to duty during the past week by the members of the staff of the House of Commons who yesterday, Sunday, handled over 30,000 visitors. I would also pay tribute to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and to the voluntary services of the St. John Ambulance brigade. They rendered a magnificent service during the whole of the week, and yesterday gave aid to 800 casualties. I would pay tribute, too, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and to the Ottawa police force, both of which organizations performed their duties magnificently. May I mention, too, the citizens of Ottawa and surrounding district, without whose cooperation that great event, the Marian Congress, could not have been the wonderful success it was.
Mr. POULIOT:: What about members of parliament? They did well.


Mr. ASHBY:: Let me mention, too, the Ottawa Electric bus drivers, who worked constantly for sixteen hours under most unusual and trying conditions.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the press gallery? They did well too.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL-EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) :	Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
question to the honourable the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I notice that he is not now in his seat but one of his colleagues will no doubt be kind enough to bring my question to his attention.
Is it true that about forty maintenance employees of the Canadian National Railways have been dismissed in the lower St. Lawrence district?
(Text):
Mr. SPEAKER:: May I direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the purpose of putting a question to a minister is not to give information but to get information.

Insurance Companies Act


Mr. GAGNON:: That is right. I am not giving information; I am asking for it. Is it true?
(Translation):
Is it true that about forty maintenance employees of the Canadian National Railways have been dismissed in the lower St. Lawrence district, that is at Rimouski, Saya-bec, Mont Joli and other neighbouring places, for refusal to work on Corpus Christi day?
(Text):



INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 337, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a short and simple bill to enable Canadian insurance companies and other insurance companies operating in Canada to invest their funds in securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The immediate purpose in asking parliament to approve this legislation is to enable our Canadian companies doing business in the United States to use their funds in that country to buy securities which the bank is to issue shortly in the United States for the first time. The other objective is, of course, to facilitate the long run purposes for which the international bank was established, that is, the reconstruction and development of member countries and the promotion and growth of international trade. We expect that Canada will benefit both directly in our export trade and indirectly in other respects from the accomplishment of these purposes.
I should recall to hon. members that Canadian insurance companies under section 60 of our act are permitted to invest their funds in a fairly wide variety of high grade securities. These include, first, bonds and other securities issued or guaranteed by governments -Canadian, British and foreign-including provincial and state governments. Secondly, they include bonds secured by mortgages and various types of statutory payments. Thirdly, they include debentures, preferred and common stock of corporations with certain specified dividend records, and subject to certain limitations. Finally, of course, there are 83166-287
included mortgages and hypothecs on real estate, not exceeding sixty per cent of the value of the property. A company may not invest in bonds or other obligations on which payment of interest or capital is in default. There are various detailed provisions relating to these items and one or two other minor items specified in the law, but what I have said will serve as a brief outline of the nature of the eligible securities.
When these categories of securities were drawn up there was, of course, no international corporation of the nature of the International Bank in existence, and since our list was specified in fairly detailed terms there was no class which includes the securities to be issued by the bank. While the securities issued or guaranteed by the bank resemble in certain respects foreign government bonds which our insurance companies are permitted to hold, they do not come within the present provisions of our law, and this bill is intended to bring them within it.
I should point out that in the United States, where jurisdiction on these matters rests with the state governments, action has been taken already by a number of the more important state legislatures to make the securities o.f the international bank eligible investments for insurance companies. I understand that this has been done by the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California, among others, while the legislation of several other states, including Connecticut and Delaware, already permits investment [DOT] in the bank's securities without specific amendment.
I do not think it is necessary for me to describe the nature, functions or activities of the international bank at this time. The house is already familiar with its purpose and constitution, which were, of course, approved when parliament authorized our participation in it by the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 194o. I tabled a few weeks ago a report to parliament on operations under that act during the last fiscal year. There is a large amount of published information available on the bank, its financial condition, the loan it has already made to France, and its other activities.
I should make it quite clear that the bill now being proposed simply enables insurance companies to buy securities of the international bank if in their judgment the securities are a good investment on the terms at which they are offered. My own view is that the securities to be issued by the bank should command a high rating. Behind them will stand, first of all, the assets of the bank, inttOLLiaa Q3SIA3H
Insurance Companies Act
[Stage Direction]
eluding not only those loans made and other assets acquired with the funds borrowed by the bank through the sale of securities, but also the loans and other assets representing the paid-in capital	of	the	bank	and	itsreserves. I have no doubt that the management and directors	of	the	bank	will	do
everything that is humanly possible to ensure that loans are wisely made and wisely spent. But those who devised the bank's constitution some three years ago recognized that more than normal risks and uncertainties would be involved in the granting of international loans during the post-war reconstruction period, and special care was taken to provide safety for those who invested in the bank's securities.
For example, the bank is able to call upon those governments which are members of it to pay amounts up to four times the total of the capital they have already paid in, if this is required to meet the obligations of the bank. The constitution of the bank limits its loans or guarantees to a total not exceeding its unimpaired subscribed capital, plus its reserves and surplus, and this in effect sets a limit on the bank's obligations to investors. Moreover, even within this limit, the security market itself, in determining the total amount of the bank's securities which it will accept over the course of time, will thereby determine the degree to which investors in those securities will be protected by the obligations of the United States, Canadian and other governments to put up additional capital if that should be required.
I should also point out that this legislation does not in any way override the control of capital movements or foreign investment by Canadians under the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Insurance companies having funds in the United States will, when this bill is passed, be able to invest such funds in the securities of the bank. However, if a company wished to transfer funds from Canada to purchase the bank's securities, it would need to . secure permission from the foreign exchange control board, and under present circumstances sales of United States funds for capital transactions of this kind could not be permitted.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I shall be but a short time this afternoon, but I do want to call the attention of the house to the great danger of this bill. It will affect the life insurance companies of this country and every policyholder in those companies. We have been through some very trying times since 1932. This is not the time to bring a measure like this before the house.

It should go to the committee on banking and commerce for consideration, because it affects the whole consolidated debt of this country and every insurance company's future. We are dealing now with trust funds. No one knows yet whether or not this international bank is going to be a success. It is becoming doubtful about the united nations as we see its futility. We had the Dumbarton Oaks and the Bretton Woods agreements which were agreed to by this house in December, 1945, and the creation of an international bank.
I have a number of objections to this proposal. When the minister introduced the resolution I pointed out that these were trust funds. I asked whether the superintendent of insurance had sanctioned the measure, and he said yes. I want to point out to the house the very grave danger which affects every policyholder if this particular bill goes through. We should stop and listen before it is too late.
These companies do business outside of as well as within Canada. The bill proposes to permit insurance companies to invest in bonds, debentures and other securities issued by the international bank. When I spoke on the Bretton Woods agreements on December 6, 1945, I said:
I am not opposed to an international monetary mechanism being established to solve the economic conditions which are growing out of the war, but I am opposed to the present proposals and I propose to show the reasons why and give the view of two great British chancellors of the exchequer.
Then I went on to refer to the agreement which was made, and I said it would mean the end of British preference and would place Canada in a very dangerous position. This bill refers to two statutes. During the session of 1932 there was a consolidation of the two statutes which are affected by this bill, and those statutes will be found in the statutes for 1932. The principle of this bill is set out in sections 1, 2 and 3; it amends the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932 and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932. There are two schedules to the act of 1932, one dealing with assets and the other with reserves. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act in chapter 11 of the statutes of 1945.
The minister has said that the inspector of insurance has approved this bill. I was very much surprised to hear that, because these are trust funds. The policyholders should have something to say about this. There should be a meeting of shareholders in order that they might approve this proposal. I am not opposed to the settlement of debt by international monetary machinery to remedy the economic

Insurance Companies Act
conditions growing out of the war, but I oppose this way of doing it. There will be no more preferential trade.
I was not a member of the house in 1932 when all the trouble arose over losses of insurance companies abroad. All these life companies must report to the inspector every year and obtain a certificate in order to do business. I have the report here but I will not name the companies; I will refer to them only as companies A, B, C and D. Hon. members can get a copy of the report of the superintendent of insurance and see how money was being lost in 1932. Practically every bank has a trust company connected with or related to it, and after the Home Bank failure great losses were shown by banks and insurance companies through common stock investments of this type.
During the depression of 1923 we had the failure of the Home bank when thousands of shareholders lost millions of dollars. Depositors suffered and millions of dollars were lost by frauds abroad. I introduced a bill in this House of Commons regarding lapsed insurance policies, the details of which will be found in Hansard, of February 14, 1929, page 123. I also introduced later a bill to prohibit investments by insurance companies and banks in common stocks outside Canada. The Liberal party was in opposition then. One of the speakers in the debate was Mr. Hepburn-page 1102, March 14, 1932- who was then a private member of the house; he criticized severely some of the investments of the insurance companies. Other members who spoke were Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ralston, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Lawson. I am not going to refer to what was said then, because that is past history. But it warns us of the great and grave danger of allowing banks and trust and insurance companies to go on without any restrictions in the manner indicated.
I do not believe in the principle of this bill. The government brought in the Bretton Woods bill in December 1945. The United States had then about ninety-five per cent of the gold supply of the world at Fort Knox. I gave my reasons for opposing the Bretton Woods agreement at that time, and was supported by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) in a note on December 8, 1945. This bill will cause the gravest concern to every policyholder in a life insurance company in Canada. Millions of dollars are already invested by Canadian life insurance companies in the United States and other countries. The companies are named at the following pages of the inspector's report: 93, 110, 134, 178, 181, 185, 193 and 255. Also the investments outside Canada are given, 83166-287J
total liabilities outside Canada, ledger assets, non-ledger investments, and so forth running into hundreds of millions of dollars. All these assets are affected by this bill. The inspector's report speaks for itself.
There was to be a conference at Moscow on international debts. It failed completely, and has been postponed to meet in London in November. Russia and France and the United States, according to the Ottawa Journal, are going to meet in Paris on June 24 to discuss European debt, settlement on the Marshall plan, and so forth. What I do not like about this bill is that it brings up once again the old question of the debts incurred by Britain in the first world war, and the matter of lend-lease; and involved in that question is the further question of bases from Newfoundland to British Guiana. Apparently that question has been written into the debt and no doubt the international bank will be asked to come across with sufficient money to take care of the settlement of that whole question'-involving both wars and lend-lease accounts. I am afraid it is going to cause a great deal of trouble. The bill is based also on the principles of the successor to the old league of nations, and the success of the bill hinges upon the success of the UNO. That will be seen by reference to many of the sections of the bill. After the last war we had the league of nations and following this war we have a new league proposal entirely, in the UNO. The result of the general policy that is now being proposed will be, in my opinion, the end of preferences and the dissolution of the empire. The result of Bretton Woods will be the abolition of the British preference and preferential trade within the empire.
We are told that the United States is in full accord with this bill. Why not? It is the most favourably situated of all the nations today. It is the supreme creditor nation in the world and can therefore dictate its own terms. When the minister introduced the bill the other day I pointed out what in my opinion were certain errors that had to be guarded against. It is all very well to say that the forty-eight states of the American union agree to it, but we should not forget that their banks and insurance companies have not the stability that our financial institutions have always had. Far from it.
In my opinion this is the wrong time to bring forward this bill. In 1932 there was a great deal of criticism of the investments of insurance companies in common stocks not only within Canada but outside as well. The situation was indeed a serious one. To qualify for an annual certificate some companies put down common
Insurance Companies Act

stocks at high rates. An order in council passed in 1932 allowed certain preferences in statements of book, par and market values of stock. One stock I know of went down from 98 to 7 or 8 in the market, yet 98 was quoted by one company to gain a certificate. You can see therefore the liability of the insurance companies for these investments. They are handling trust funds and everyone who has a policy is affected by any error in judgment which these companies may perpetrate in relation to the international bank. I venture to call this whole matter a tragedy in international affairs. I do not think it is too much to say that the policy now proposed will mean the end of the British preference and! preferential trade and the end of the present British empire.
What is this proposal before us today? The united nations monetary and financial conference, held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22, 1944, resulted in certain articles of agreement. Those articles were approved by the 'United States Senate on July 20, 1945, and by Canada in December 1945. The proposals provide for an international monetary fund or multilateral clearing and for an international bank for reconstruction and development. The fund will provide short-term credits and the bank will provide long-term loans for countries whose balance of payments is adverse. The fund and the bank are the nucleus, or an organ, of an internationalist federation whose chief function is to give unrestricted scope to the gold standard, and expansionist policies of the principal creditor. Participation in the fund by monetary quota is to be the determining and limiting factor.
The articles of agreement involve a return to the gold standard. Monetary and economic policy is to be enforced throughout the world by an international authority supported by an international policy force and by the equivalent of world government. The fund and the bank will be situated in and controlled by the United States as a result of that country's 85 per cent holding of the world's monetary gold. The favourable balances that the United States will enjoy will be sustained by American loans to foreign, countries. Imperial preference and the sterling area will be abandoned. International currency stabilization should be based on: (1) sound financial administration such as is provided within the sterling area; (2) effective trade reciprocity which has been successfully achieved by imperial preference; (3) stability of the price level and a managed gold standard.
I do not think there is very much more I can say except to state emphatically that I

am thoroughly opposed to the bill. This whole Bretton Woods business is the creation of Lord Keynes. He thought he had an idea and they sent him to Washington. They had a number of meetings covering a period of seven weeks at Bretton Woods. Keynes is no doubt a great financier but he has never had any faith in the British empire. A critic said editorially at the time of his death: "The death of Lord Keynes occurred at the end of April. He had been our principal negotiator with the Americans about the loan. For this task he was, in spite of his excellent brain, very much handicapped, for as I have said, he had no faith in the future of the empire, nor indeed any urge to stand by it. And this lack of faith, this pessimism showed all through his life. He did not fight for his country when he was a young man, and when he was older he did not appear to rely on the essential qualities of his countrymen. He could work for them, but he could not believe in their future. This attitude of his did us immense harm in Washington. Many Americans felt that they need not consider the empire when England's principal negotiator disbelieved it. Added to this he was accompanied to Washington by a crowd of superior young men, economists, professors and others who made an indelible, and deplorable, impression upon all who saw them and heard their haughty and highbrow voices. We make a great mistake when we send such representatives abroad. We cannot make ourselves popular in the United States, there is too deep a prejudice there against Britain, but the sort of people she sent to the United States to discuss the loan would be disliked anywhere and were fatal in America. Lord Keynes may not have been aware of this but the attaches of the British embassy, the men who are trained to have quiet good manners and patience, suffered acutely.
This 'bill has come up at a most inopportune time and I suggest it could very well_ have been held over. There was no necessity to proceed with it at this session. I had been hoping that we would get through with this session by the first of July. If the bill were allowed to stand over I do not think it would affect Britain's financial relations with the United States to the slightest degree, because the questions involved in the bill could be ironed out at the meeting now in Paris and the one that is to take place next November in London. An attempt was made to settle international debts in Moscow but that failed. I suggest that for twenty years we have had too many international meetings,

Insurance Companies Act
peace pacts, financial agreements and all that kind of thing. They have all ended in failure.
The question of lend lease is also involved, so that at this particular time it can only lead to trouble if we proceed with this bill, because after all the principles are inconsistent. In my opinion imperial preference and, indeed, the very existence of the empire are now at stake. I do not wish to say very much more about this matter but I am certainly absolutely opposed to the principle of the bill. It can only mean trouble for the mother country. Russia is too weak to fight anyone at the present time, having lost twenty million men in the war. Her cities destroyed by Germany are all rubble; she has no real houses; the people have no homes, and the result will be that the bank will have to make provision for them as well as for rebuilding all of Europe. Russia is too weak to fight anybody at the present time. If she had superior armaments and were to attempt it, she might come to the point of disaster. But it does seem that the Soviet Union is not the enemy of all the rest. She is only the enemy of two different ideologies. I am glad to see the announcement that the day of appeasement by Britain and the United States is over and that they are going to settle with her in the right way by negotiation and all that kind of thing. I hope we shall see Russia, the United States and Britain carry into peace the successes which they had in war. No purpose can be served by criticizing Russia, because if there is any good left in her she cannot afford not to develop it. If not, nothing else matters. Our task as an empire is to work with the United States and France, we hope, not so much for the rehabilitation of Germany-we did that before and saw the result-our task is to work with our allies in the war, and not do as was done after the last war, rebuild Germany at the expense of France. Britain now after 1945 seems bent on making the same mistake as after 1918.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, this bill is interesting in this sense, that it shows a new trend in banking. International banking in the first place had been moving from London to New York; now it is going to Washington. The international bank means that the United States, with the assistance of a few of the other united nations, will finance the devastated countries of Europe and other continents. I remember that before the first war most of the investments of the English insurance companies were in Canada, where they
promoted Canadian trade and Canadian business at large. But since the last war the trend of British investments has been different. Now the money which is paid on premiums by the Canadian people is often diverted, according to the decisions made by the insurance companies, to countries other than Canada, countries rvith which Canada has little trade.
Statistics are dry, but when we compile them in order to understand the various trends of business we inevitably come to certain conclusions. In my humble view the money which is paid by Canadians on premiums should be used to promote the interests of the Canadian people at large, either in this country or in other countries with which we are associated in trade and business. Some time ago it was the practice that all earnings of insurance companies in Canada were deposited in Canadian chartered banks whose main offices are in the various cities of Canada. Now it is different. A subagent of a mother bank in London is used for the investments of the insurance companies. In the monthly reports which are published in the Montreal Gazette it is most interesting to note that the total amount of the current and savings deposits of that subagency of an English mother bank is the lowest of all the banks, probably because of the fact that some time in the month the money which is deposited in that bank is sent across to the mother house in England.
What I regret about that institution, which is known to everybody, is that it does not give the same reports as the other Canadian banks give. Its report is mimeographed, and it is a summary; it is far from being complete. The purposes of the establishment of that new institution-which I will not call a bank, because it is rather a subagency of a big London bank-is to drain off to London all the Canadian investments kept with that bank, and in London the money is reinvested according to the decision not of Canadian bankers but of English bankers. I protest against that.
I warn the minister of the danger of such investments which cannot be in accordance with Canadian needs. I say that for this reason. I do not know what will be the purpose of the English companies making any investments in the international bank. There again we may have a representative, but we shall not be the majority in that bank and we may wonder if the investments which will be made by the international bank will be in conformity with Canadian needs.
Insurance Companies Act

I draw the attention of the minister and my hon. colleague to this serious question, because the amount of premiums paid by the Canadian people to insurance companies is high; and there is a surplus of money which belongs to the insurance company and which may be profitable to Canadian business. Very often it is hard for us to get from the insurance companies any loans, for housing, for instance. If the insurance companies are given the excuse of being permitted to make investments in the international bank, when the Canadian people go to the insurance companies to get housing loans they will be told, "It is impossible; we have lent all our money to the international bank for the reconstruction of Europe," or some other continent, and the Canadian people will have to wait longer in order to see the fulfilment of the promises made by the insurance companies.
That is one point. I do not want to repeat what I have said. I believe this is a matter to which members of both houses should give serious attention. They should consider what would be the best possible investment for all insurance companies which operate in this country.
Lately we have seen in the press that the largest investment in Canadian business has been made by United States companies operating in Canada, just as before the war it was by English companies operating in Canada. We should come back to the old practice. The new one is wrong, because we cannot dispose of our assets as well as we could previously. The minister has control over the investments of the insurance companies so long as they are made in Canadian business here in this country; but when they are made outside, when by law we authorize insurance companies to make investments in the international bank, we have no more control. We have a representative there but he counts only for one, and the decision is made by the other nations which at times are very greedy and leave nothing to Canada. The international bank is an institution for which we pay and from which we get nothing except investments in countries with which we may have some trade, but it is doubtful. Therefore, sir, the only way to be practical is to come back to the old theory of true Canadian government and as far as possible have all the investments of the insurance companies made to assist Canadian business men.
My second point, which I suggested some years ago to a predecessor of the minister, is that we should tax Lloyd's, a company that has been operating in Canada but which does not pay taxes. It is not a company; it is a society, and I have been told that is the

reason Lloyd's does not come within the taxation laws. I do not see why a group of men, called a society or a company, should not pay the same taxes that Canadian companies pay. Otherwise their competition becomes unfair. If they do not pay taxation their rates may be lower than those of the Canadian companies or even other English companies that are taxed; and it is disloyal competition for our own firms. I will tell you more than that, sir, as to why no special consideration should be given Lloyd's. Some time ago a Norwegian company was ready to come here and register its ships in Canada, but Lloyd's objected and said, "We will not insure your ships if they are of Canadian register." Therefore I do not see why we should have special consideration for a company such as that, which does all the promotion of English business but forgets everything when it comes to the Canadian side of it.
I bring both these matters to the attention of the minister-the taxation of Lloyd's and the consideration of Canadian interests in connection with investments by insurance companies.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest what the minister had to say in reference to the passing of this bill and the promotion of international trade. I am of the opinion that when our citizens make their payments to the insurance companies, which become these trust funds, they believe that such payments are in accordance with the law as it now stands. They will not have the opportunity to review what is in this bill, and perhaps will never know that the legislation before us today will permit those in charge-presumably the government, since this looks like a government bill-to use their trust funds in the promotion and bolstering up of an- international bank. That is not their intention. In my opinion they feel that trade would be expanded much -more if these premiums and trust funds were invested in this country of resources and opportunity, which investment I am sure the minister will agree is recognized by this parliament as one that may be made by insurance companies. In that way we would retain these moneys here, where the trustees feel they belong, rather than having them invested in an international bank.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) brought up an even more important point, which with the permission of the house I should like to repeat. We have sat in thi3 chamber listening to speech after speech about the shortage of

Insurance Companies Act
houses and the scarcity of cheap money with which to build them. We have heard about what is more or less the flop of Housing Enterprises-a company financed by the insurance companies-because those insurance companies were not getting a sufficient return on their money to permit them to go ahead and build more houses in spite of the obstacles of high labour costs and so on. Yet today we are asked to pass legislation which will let this money go into another channel when it is so badly needed here for housing and other enterprises that are awaiting expansion. They are awaiting expansion not only by our own people but also by those who are so anxious to come here from Great Britain. Today we see in the press that some seven thousand people are coming to Canada from the British isles. They will bring every dollar they can possibly get hold of; but how many dollars will they be permitted to bring with them, in view of the financial condition of England today? Can each individual bring So,000 in Canadian money? I doubt it. They have British pounds to burn over there, but they cannot change them into Canadian dollars in Britain, and we on this side cannot exchange dollars for British pounds for the development of this country. No; they must have wheat and bacon for every Canadian dollar they are able to get their hands on, and they cannot allot Canadian dollars to their people who are so anxious to come to Canada.
I remember the discussion in 1932, when the previous bill was under discussion, when we -were over there and you were over here; and remembering that discussion I wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite have the audacity to introduce the present bill, which goes against every principle enunciated by the great Liberal party when they were on this side of the house. Hour by hour, speaker by speaker, they berated the Sun Life and all the other life insurance companies who were seeking the legislation enacted at that time. Now I ask hon. members opposite to rise in their places and repeat what they said in 1932, as my honourable and honest friend from Tepriscouata rose in his place today and made his representations.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) pointed out today that forty-eight states of the union gave authorization of the kind proposed in this bill. I do not think that is correct, and I believe the minister will agree with me. I do not believe half the states in the union up to this time have put through similar legislation. But if they have, what of it? Some of us have lived long
enough to see what is happening. I am not speaking in a derogatory fashion about any state of the union, but I do point out What has happened in the individual states. We have seen certain states allow companies to form; we have seen permission given for certain transactions along monetary lines. In the course of a decade that same monetary legislation given passed by the individual states has fallen by the wayside. Today Canadian life insurance policies, next to dominion government bonds, are the soundest investments in this country. But people in many states of the union have suffered for lack of legislation which would protect them as Canadian citizens are protected. State legislation on these matters is not at all on a par with legislation which has emanated from this chamber, for the simple reason that banking legislation applies universally across Canada whereas in the United States it may apply to the individual state. And until such time as the forty-eight states of the union endorse legislation of this kind, and if possible have Washington, as a matter of high policy endorse it, I do not see why we in this country should, to use the language of the street, stick our necks out. We should hold in Canada what we have.
Our banking institutions are recognized the world over as of the highest order. They are on a par with or even higher than those of any other country. Our life insurance organizations are considered equal to or even better than some of those in dear old England.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will realize that certain companies are able to form in England and do business in this country. Do they take risks here after inspection by their own officers or upon inspection by accredited agents in this country? No. They will take a risk in Canada because a certain insurance company may accept a risk on a certain property, for, we will say, $100,000. The Canadian tariff company will take the risk at S100,000 because its organization has examined the risk and has found the rate fair. They go to the expense of checking all the hazards. Those expenses come out of t'he coffers of Canadian insurance companies.
My hon. friend mentioned a case-and I verify it-where a company overseas will take, we will say, $50,000 of a certain risk for the simple reason that the Canadian company was prepared to accept that risk. The Canadian company operates at its own expense; and then the United States and British companies, without any expense whatsoever, will proceed to write a risk on the same property.
Insurance Companies Act

What is more, they write the risk today, and in five years time they renew it, without any inspection or notice to those insured.
There have been cases in which warranty clauses have been slipped in, to the effect that if any of the others carrying a portion of the risk find it necessary to reduce that risk by a certain amount, the risk on which the warranty clause appears will be reduced automatically by the same amount. Who reads insurance policies? I believe the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) will agree that they are like something written on ice. No one reads those great long documents. They are not checked carefully. The owner may not be notified of such a warranty clause slipped in by a company in the United States or the United Kingdom. What I am saying may not be strictly relevant to the bill, but the point I make is that before we become too greatly involved in joint arrangements of this kind, which to my mind are not necessary, we should have an overhauling of the entire insurance system. Let us be on a parity with those who wish to join with us in the manner mentioned in the bill, so that we may feel that not only shall we have fair protection, but that the protection we do get, whether in respect of life, fire or indemnity, is of a kind which has been subject to the examination of our authorities. In this way we may be assured that we shall have the highest type of insurance coverage, such as is found in Canadian fire, life or indemnity policies, a coverage better than that found anywhere else in the world.
Let us keep this money in Canada. Let us not make it easy or soft for those conducting insurance operations to sit at their mahogany desks and control funds for which the minister is responsible. Let them be up and doing in their own line of business. Let them invest their trust funds as the people of Canada would want them invested, namely in Canadian enterprise of a kind which would be considered proper and right by the people of this country. Let us have money for the building of houses, first mortgage money, new enterprise money. Let us retain our Canadian money here for development, in view of the fact that at the present time we cannot get enough United States dollars for goods and services we would send to that country. Let there be some uniformity in the insurance legislation of this international body, before we become too greatly involved.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. speaker. I believe the Social Credit group made its stand clear with respect to the Bretton Woods agreement when the bill was before the house. I realize that at this time it

would not be in order to enter into a discussion of the international monetary fund and international banking. It has been said that the international bank would help to extend foreign trade. I believe all hon. members realize that the situation which has resulted from the shortage of United States dollars can never be remedied by an international monetary fund or an international bank of reconstruction. Apparently it is now recognized that we should help Europe by some form of mutual aid or lend-lease agreement.
When we were discussing the Bretton Woods agreement hon. members of this group stated time and again that the devastated countries of Europe could never overcome their difficu-ties through the Bretton Woods agreement. The only way to overcome them is by some form of mutual aid or lend lease. I remember when we pointed that out we were referred to as idealistic; it was said that we would never be able to get the other countries to agree to such proposals. I just want to remind the house that the stand we took three years ago on this question is being fully substantiated today when it is recognized on all sides that the devastated areas of Europe will have to be helped either by outright gilts or by some form of mutual aid. The kind of help they are able to obtain form the international monetary fund or the international bank will be merely a drop in the bucket.
We in this group oppose the bill generally on the ground that it will aggravate further our exchange position with the United States.
I think the minister has stated that these insurance companies already have funds in the United States, but on the other hand I do not think the minister can guarantee that no Canadian funds will be used for the purpose of buying these securities. To the extent that Canadian funds are used for the purchase of securities of the international bank you will have to make those funds convertible into the currency of any other member state of the bank. That will mean generally that Canadian funds will have to be converted into United States funds. We are already facing a deficit of over $600 million with the United States, and if conditions continue we shall have to face one of $900 million by the end of the year. Therefore I cannot see much sense in bringing down a bill which will aggravate that situation. I think the minister appreciates that that is a serious situation; at least he emphasized it in his budget speech.
Then there is the other argument that it ia not wise at this time to encourage the invest-

Insurance Companies Act
ment of Canadian funds in foreign securities. There is a great need for the investment today of Canadian funds in Canada because there are many projects that need developing. Why should' we encourage Canadians to invest their funds out of the country when there are so many projects needing development here? Remember, the minister's predecessor empha-sibed the fact that we would have to get United States capital into this country to provide us with venture capital. If we are continually to encourage people to invest their money in gilt-edged securities such as dominion bonds and securities of the international bank, we shall find it that much harder to get venture capital in this country.
So far as this group is concerned we are very much opposed to encouraging American capital to come into this country, because that merely means going into debt to the United States, thereby increasing our external debt. By encouraging people to invest their money in dominion bonds or the securities of the international bank you are discouraging the investment of Canadian venture capital in this country.
Will the minister indicate whether it is intended to refer this bill to the banking and commerce committee?


Mr. ABBOTT:: No, it is not.


Victor Quelch: There are one or two questions I should like the minister to answer when we get into committee. I should like him to say whether this investment will still be strictly under the control of the foreign exchange control board. I take it it will be I should like the minister to state the rate of interest on the loan by the international bank to France, and also give us a break-down of the interest charged on that loan, the amount paid to investors, and the amount charged by the bank, itself. I should like the minister to state what the Canadian quota of these securities will be-that is, how many securities Canada will have the right to buy.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the' house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Bonds, etc., issued or guaranteed by international bank.


Thomas Langton Church: This bill, involving millions of dollars, should not have been brought in in the dying days of this session, but having been brought in, it should go to the banking and commerce committee. What have the forty-eight states of the United States of America to do with Canada? This means the disso-83166-288
lution of the British empire. We are Canadians, a part of the British empire. Evidently the government now has no confidence in this international bank, and wants to unload it on the insurance companies as well. The more I think of it the more it reminds me of the man that broke the bank at Monte Carlo. Our insurance companies are dealing with trust funds, and we have no right to go over the heads of the shareholders and policyholders in those companies, with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets involved. According to statements made in the debate of 1932, one of these companies was on the verge of insolvency in that year on account of the way they had conducted their business. Parliament in the dying days of the session of 1945 put through the Bretton Woods agreement. That was not a settlement of international debts and never will be. It simply means that the United States, holding nearly ninety per cent of the world's gold supply, will be creditor to the whole civilized world. We should stop, look and listen before we interfere with our insurance policies, because that is what this is going to do. The government are afraid of the Bretton Woods policy which they supported in 1945 and are loading the responsibility now on to the insurance companies, which are hard enough pressed as it is to remain efficient after going through two world wars. Our first debt is to the policyholders and shareholders of these insurance companies. Again I ask that this bill be sent to the banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no intention of sending this bill to the banking and commerce committee. As I said in my brief remarks on introducing the bill, it is a very simple one. It is purely enabling legislation to authorize the insurance companies, if they see fit, to invest in the securities of this international bank. This house approved the two institutions set up in the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945, and approved this international bank. Along with the other members we have undertaken to introduce appropriate legislation to authorize our financial institutions, if they see fit to do so, to invest in the'securities of this bank. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, its securities will be to a very large extent government guaranteed securites. The bank is set up on the principle that the members are responsible for four times their capital subscription. The United States subscription was $3,175 million, of which they have paid in

Insurance Companies Act

$635 million, and the balance is of course callable if it should be needed. This institution, whatever some members may think of it, is an attempt to restore the world to ordered trading conditions. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, that it cannot do the whole job, but it can help, and I for one strongly feel that Canada, which has perhaps more to gain by stable world trading conditions than any other country in the world, should do her part to see that this institution is a success. For that reason this legislation is introduced.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert on these matters, but when I looked over the bill I thought it was, as the Minister of Finance has just said, a simple bill. I do not think it indicates, as the member for Broadview suggested, that the government has lost confidence in the international bank for reconstruction and development. I think it means the contrary, because as I understand it, the insurance companies can only invest in securities of which the government approves. I believe there is a provision to that effect in the Insurance Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The act sets out what they may invest in.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, and if the government adds these securities to the list of investments in which life insurance companies can invest their funds, that is a sign of the government's confidence in the international bank. I think the bill should have been referred to the banking and commerce committee in order 'that witnesses could be called, if needed, to bring out any implications inherent in the amendment. However, as I said, I do not see any dangerous implications. It rather indicates that the insurance companies think the securities are a better investment than say investing money in the building of houses in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I reassure my hon. friend. The insurance companies have not asked for this amendment. It is a government amendment.


Angus MacInnis: I am glad the minister has mentioned that, because I was going to ask that question. So far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for this group, I am not opposed to this bill.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not think there is any doubt that moneys of Canadian insurance companies which might be lent to the international bank are just as likely to come back to Canada in the form of loans as to any other
country. But there is another phase upon which I should like the minister to express his view, and that is with regard to our own requirements in Canada. The funds of life insurance companies represent the savings of our people. They are surplus funds which if not immediately invested in the country from which they come will necessarily lead to a depression. I think therefore in keeping with the Bretton Woods agreement, and in keeping also with the international bank, the Canadian government should have set up, indeed should now set up, an investment board or investment bank publicly owned which will see to it that all the life insurance funds in Canada continue to be immediately invested to maintain our own economic system at home, and when that has been taken care of there is no reason why anybody should object to our doing our international part in any financial project which may lead toward the stability of trading between nations. But I do say that a very important point is involved, that it is possible that the funds which should be reinvested in Canada may be drained off and our own country left without the necessary purchasing power to keep our economic system going.


Victor Quelch: Investments of Canadians in the United States are strictly controlled by the foreign exchange control board. Will the insurance companies, under this measure, be allowed to buy all the securities they wish, or will the foreign exchange control board set a limit on the amount of foreign securities they may buy? If not, it is bound to have an adverse effect on our exchange position.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Investments by Canadian companies in the securities of the bank will be subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Insurance companies doing business in and having assets in the United States will be permitted to invest in the securities of the bank, but under present conditions they would not be permitted to convert Canadian dollar assets into United States dollars to invest in the securities of the bank. I think that answers my hon. friend's question. I would think that indirectly this might have a beneficial effect on our United States dollar position, because the bank, in making loans to European countries, as it has done to France and will no doubt do to others, will provide those countries to which we sell goods with the necessary United States dollar resources with which to pay us. I would say that indirectly this should have-I would hope it would have-a favourable effect on our United States dollar position on balance.

Insurance Companies Act


Victor Quelch: The great shortage in the world is United States dollars, to a far greater extent than Canadian dollars, and except to a very limited extent a country with an unfavourable balance of trade with Canada cannot get a loan from the international bank. So the bank would be of no help there. What was the rate of interest charged by the international bank on the loan to France?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The rate was 3J per cent, plus a commission to establish a reserve against losses of one per cent, or a total rate of ii per cent. There is a commitment charge of \\ per cent on amounts not drawn. That is, if a country has a loan but has not made use of it, the interest rate will be 1J per cent.


Victor Quelch: What rate will the bank pay on securities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say. It has not yet been announced, but the understanding is that a public offering will be made shortly, and at that time the terms and conditions will be made known.


Victor Quelch: The loans so far have been made out of the capital of the bank?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


William Irvine: Will the minister answer my question as to whether the proposals made in this bill would be likely to affect investments in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think it would have any effect, one way or the other, on the investment by Canadian insurance companies of their Canadian assets in Canada.


Victor Quelch: Why?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because for the time being at any rate they would not be able to convert their Canadian dollar assets into United States dollars.


Victor Quelch: Will that be the policy until the position with respect to United States dollars eases off?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is hard to make a commitment in perpetuity as to policy. That would be a matter to be determined by the foreign exchange control board, and a matter of government policy with respect to exports of capital.


Mr. CASE:: The minister stated that the insurance companies have not asked for this legislation. I take it that the bank will have huge sums of money which it will be anxious to keep invested, that the real business transactions will be through the international bank; that is, the insurance companies will not be investing in foreign securities. I think the matter could be set at rest if the committee 83166-288i
were assured that there is no thought of pressure being put on the banks or the insurance companies to make these investments. As long as it is voluntary on their part, I am satisfied to leave it to their judgment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I give that assurance in the most unqualified terms. There will be no pressure, direct or indirect, placed on *the insurance companies to invest in these securities. It will be left to their own business judgment.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Was this legislation not brought in at the request of the insurance companies?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it has not been brought in at their request. I have no means of knowing whether they would invest in the securities, but I express the personal hope that they will consider it desirable to do so. At any rate, the legislation was not introduced at their suggestion, directly or indirectly. It is purely a government measure.


Thomas John Bentley: But the minister, in reply to certain questions asked him by different members, said he hoped that certain things would be and certain other things would be. Now there must be good grounds for hoping or thinking, particularly if the legislation comes from his department and on the advice of his financial experts. He should be more positive than merely expressing a hope or thinking such and such. He should be able to say what will take place. Why is it so necessary at the present time that this should take place? Wrhen the Bretton Woods agreement was before the house-I am speaking for myself-I agreed to it, hoping that the international bank would do some good, but I do not see them taking a very active part in the international meeting held in London. I do not see them acting on the financial advice of those who are trying to bring about trade agreements. When will they do something which will vindicate the confidence that some of us had in Bretton Woods as a means of bringing about world peace and improved international relations?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As its name implies, this is an international bank for reconstruction and development. It is not to provide loans for the purchase of wheat, for example, or to negotiate a wheat agreement. It is an institution that is new. Nothing of its sort has been tried before, and it is hoped that it will help to provide financial resources for the war-devastated1 countries in Europe to enable them to reconstruct their economies and do what is necessary to produce goods to export to us in order to pay for goods that we may
Insurance Companies Act

send them. The hon. member wishes to know why we should do it now. For this reason. We are a partner, along with many other nations, in this International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It is about to make its first issue of securities to the public, and if I may express a personal view I think it is desirable that we should take our place along with the other partners and not have it said in the United States that they are the only people who are doing anything in this direction. We must not have them say, "We are going to put up all the money while Canada is not doing anything about it". We are a partner in the thing and we have an interest as great as or greater than that of almost any other country in working out suitable financial relations; and, having approved the principle two years ago, we must I think take our proper part in carrying it into effect. That is the only reason for it now. When I was approached as Minister of Finance and was advised that there was about to be an issue of securities, as contemplated from the beginning, I assured the management of the bank that I would introduce the bill into our parliament not later than the middle of June and endeavour to have the house pass it as quickly as possible. That is the reason I am bringing it in now.


Victor Quelch: Did the international bank make a request that the government pass this legislation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In my capacity as Minister of Finance I am a governor of the bank, representing Canada, and the president of the bank asked me if we were prepared to introduce this legislation at this session. I assured him I was prepared to bring in a bill and that is what I am doing.


Victor Quelch: I believe one or two states in the United States refused to pass legislation. I understand it has been turned down by some.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have heard of two. The principal states I mentioned in my preliminary statement are New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. My hon. friend will appreciate that they are some of the largest and1 wealthiest states, and the states in which some of the wealthier insurance corporations have their headquarters. Perhaps it would not be of tremendous practical significance if one or two of the smaller and less wealthy states were not to amend their laws.


Thomas Langton Church: The object of this bill is to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act of 1932 and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act of the same year.

All this legislation that we are now passing is linked1 up with Bretton Woods. If it had not been for Britain the United States would have been invaded during the first two years of the last war. I do not see why the government should drive the insurance companies into the position of coming to the support of a bank the functioning of which will mean the end of preferences and of freedom of trade and the dissolution of the British empire. It simply means that, so far as we go, we are aiding the government in getting itself out of the great difficulty it got into by passing Bretton Woods. I have been greatly interested in what a financial writer in England, a man of discernment, had to say about the Bretton Woods agreement and what we have done in this parliament, not only in December, 1945, but now. He states:
The proposals are inconsistent, hut the attack on imperial preference and on the very existence of the empire itself is now complete. Chapter 3 provides for the use of quotas to safeguard the balance of payments. Provision for the use of tariffs for this purpose would have afforded recognition of a principal function of imperial preference to maintain effective reciprocity and thereby an equilibrium in the balance of payments. Preferences are to be eliminated but tariffs are merely to be reduced. Most-favoured nation tariff rates are to be lowered to the level of preferential rates. The most-favoured-nation principle is to be applied internally to the countries of the British empire. Universal expansion of production through effective reciprocity is to be sacrificed to American expansionist policy.
What he says is quite true. . We are going even further than the 1911 reciprocity proposals to make this country a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for the United States. This writer continues:	.
Any fiscal concession made by the United (States could be only a token for the American tariff is at such a level as to allow of substantial reduction without impairing its efficiency. No American tariff concession could be genuine unless bilateral action provided for a specific flow of two-way trade. Indeed, to follow the process to its logical conclusion, there would be preferential arrangements independently by each of the states of the American union to the rest of the world. Yet even such action as this would not materially increase the participation of the outside world in the American market because the fiscal policies of the United States have consolidated its internal production and trade and created a highly developed autarchy.
Imperial preference represents a principle which should be inviolate and which should not be open to discussion with any foreign power. Xo concession which can be made 'by any foreign power could compensate for the elimination of imperial preference. In the place of any such surrender, the most-favoured nation clause should be abolished.
I want to read one or two other paragraphs. This is a great writer in the National Review,

Saskatchewan Natural Resources
a paper which along with many others in England, has attacked these proposals. For us to compel these insurance companies- because this is a mandatory act; this is a statute-to make these investments is wrong. The insurance companies are to be compelled to lend your policy money and your trust funds, and the shareholders have been interfered with also. This article goes on to say:
The abrupt termination of lend lease in August, 1945, was the occasion for the opening of negotiations in Washington. On December 6, 1945, an economic and financial agreement was concluded by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States.
We concluded one a few days later, on December 8, 1945.
The granting of a line of credit by the United States to the United Kingdom follows the clearly defined pattern of United States foreign policy since 1933 evidenced by the Anglo-American trade agreement of 1938, the Atlantic charter, the mutual-aid agreement, the Hot Springs, Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks proposals, the international civil aviation conference and the charter of the united nations. The agreement is determined by the most-favoured nation principle and expansionist policy.
A commercial charter has been distributed and is the basis of an international conference on trade and emploj'ment. The establishment of an international trade organization within the economic and social council of the united nations organization is proposed. The aim is a planned economy and world government.
That is what you are speaking about now.
It is assumed that sacrifices in the common cause were sufficient to warrant the cancellation of the British debt to the United States that arose from the first world war.
They should have been cancelled long ago because Britain protected the shores of the United States.
The benefits received by Britain and the United States in the defeat of their common enemies are deemed to justify the complete and final settlement of lend lease and reciprocal aid in the second world war.
The line of credit is granted exclusively to the United Kingdom and the proceeds will be devoted to purchases in the United States. This constitutes an extreme case of "discrimination" and illustrates the privileged position claimed for money transactions. If the full credit is employed and repayment made over the full fifty-five year period, interest will amount to $2,212,500,000. Repayment could be assured, even at a higher rate of interest, if the proposals for consideration by an international conference on trade and employment were drastically altered.
This is absolutely correct. Why should we go over the heads of the insurance companies and compel them to lend these trust funds to the international bank? I can tell you this: I am surprised that this bill should be introduced in the dying days of this parliament. Certainly it should be considered by the banking and commerce committee, where the insurance companies could be heard. Look at the trouble we got the insurance companies in in 1932. Read the report of the superintendent of insurance with regard to what happened in the United States, and the policy of dealing with common stock, where millions and millions of dollars in trust funds were lost. I say if hon. members will read the report of the superintendent of insurance they will have a different idea of the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: When shall
the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Next sitting of the
house.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Abbott
moves, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that Bill No. 337 be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?	.


Thomas Langton Church: On division.


John Horne Blackmore: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed.



SASKATCHEWAN NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
[DOT]-CONFIRMATION OF DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 174, to vary the Saskatchewan natural resources agreement.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement confirmed.
Mr. GREEN:: Is the minister not explaining this bill?


Mr. HOWE:: This 'bill is simple in form, and the explanation given in the bill itself is complete. The explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to confirm the agreement between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the government of the province of Saskatchewan set out in the schedule to the bill.
Under the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1930, certain public shooting grounds and bird sanctuaries were preserved.
Maritime Commission

Many of them have now dried up or are otherwise unsuitable for the purpose for which they were originally set aside. The agreement in the schedule provides that these reservations may be cancelled by agreement 'between the two responsible ministers concerned with the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council.
The agreement follows the form of the agreement with the government of the province of Alberta which was approved in 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. MARITIME COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 336, to establish the Canadian maritime commission.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make a statement on second reading?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a complete statement on the resolution, and I think nothing further is required from myself at this time.


Howard Charles Green: This Bill No. 336 is described as an act to establish the Canadian maritime commission. The official opposition approve the setting up of a maritime commission for Canada. As a matter of fact we have advocated such action for several years; and there are very good reasons for setting up such a commission. For example, there is the importance to Canada of our foreign trade. Then there is the importance of having assured and dependable shipping services. That would include, of course, having the actual shipping, having the merchant seamen to man. the ships, having the men to direct the operation of these shipping activities, and having the facilities for shipbuilding. There is also the importance from the point of view of naval protection. That point was clearly put by one of our senior Canadian naval officers, Admiral Victor Brodeur, who said on November 24, 1943:
It is incorrect .to think that a strong sea power can be obtained by building a strong fighting navy alone. To have real sea power a nation must also have a strong merchant navy.
Those words, I think, will be approved by every hon. member. There is also the importance to Canada of having men in a position to take part in international councils dealing with questions of Shipping. That, too, is an important factor.
You know, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are a maritime race. While very little is said in
this house about maritime questions the fact remains that from the start Canadians have been a maritime people. Take those. Canadians who live on the Atlantic coast. At one time maritimers were the leading shipping men of the world, and they had a Wonderful record both in the actual building of ships and in their operation. Then on the St. Lawrence river we have had a long line of distinguished seamen, largely French-speaking Canadians, who have made a great name as a maritime people. Again, on the great lakes, we have a tradition as a maritime nation. For decades the many ports along those lakes have turned out men interested in ships, even though they did not have the smell of salt water to call them to sea. Of course on the Pacific great interest has always been taken in shipping, and probably it will always remain one of the greatest businesses on that coast. Even on the prairies, where they have only a few large lakes, there is great interest in shipping. It always intrigued me that during the recent war such a large percentage of the men in the Canadian navy should have come from the three prairie provinces; and they made splendid sailors. Time and again references have been made in this house to the type of naval men coming from the prairie provinces. So I repeat that Canadians are a maritime race, and for that reason as well as the others I have given, this bill is of great importance.
The war gave a tremendous impetus to shipping and shipbuilding in Canada; there was a great increase in the interest taken by the people of Canada in shipping; and we now find ourselves with the ships to constitute a merchant navy and with the trained personnel to man them. The other evening the minister gave some interesting figures, which are to be found at page 4203 of Hansard. There he listed the Canadian tonnage at the present time. According to those figures, we have 153 ocean-going ships totalling 982,869 tons. In addition we have eighty ships at present with the British ministry of transport, with a total tonnage of approximately 560,000. I understand that those Ships will be coming back to Canada within a comparatively short space of time. The minister also listed canal freighters and tankers numbering 146, with a total of 285,454 tons. Then he added the west coast passenger boats, sixteen in number, with a total tonnage of 51,235, and the Saint John-Digby ferry with a tonnage of 4,055. This made a total of 316 ocean-going ships in Canada today, totalling 1,323,613 tons, in addition to the eighty ships I referred to previously, now with the British ministry of transport. As

Maritime Commission
hon. members will realize, that is quite a sizeable merchant navy. The minister also gave us some figures with regard to Canadian shipyards; at page 4204, where he said:
The Canadian shipbuilding industry today comprises seventeen major well-equipped shipyards, and there are also, a number of smaller ship and boat building concerns. During the peak of our war effort there were 53,000 men employed on shipbuilding in these major yards alone. Today they have over 16,000 men in their employ . . .
I thought he might have gone on to give us the number of men in the merchant navy, but perhaps he will do that at a later stage in this debate. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that at one time during the war there were about
18,000	men in that service.
In view of these facts it was natural that there should be widespread demands for policies to ensure that we maintain our position as a maritime nation. Those demands have been heard in the House of Commons, not only from members of the opposition, but also from government supporters. I remember that last year the late member for Halifax, Mr. Macdonald, made a plea for the setting up of a maritime commission, and a very fine plea it was. Then there have been demands from union leaders across Canada, leaders of unions interested in the merchant navy. For example, I think most hon. members received a copy of the brief of the Canadian seamen's union entitled "The immediate needs of Canada's shipping industry," and it was a very good brief, too. The shipbuilders have made similar demands. As far back as 1944 they submitted a brief for shipbuilding, with recommendations by the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association. The ship operators have also been in favour of the setting up of a commission. Only this morning I received the 1946 annual of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. It contains an interesting article headed "Required, a strong government policy". I shall read two paragraphs from the article which is on page 10:
Our dominion government must come forward soon with a strong policy to build up our merchant fleet. We have tihe nucleus of ships and men. Training establishments must be augmented; men encouraged to man our ships in the same way they manned our wartime navy; long-term government assistance must be given to our shipping companies to build modern tonnage.
We have a good fleet of general carriers. We must now 'build tonnage for special routes and trades. Oui government must provide longterm loans to ibuild Canadian flag tonnage on the basis of comparative costs in Canada and elsewhere. We must build passenger ships for our
coastal and offshore trades. We must build refrigerated ships to place our farmers' produce in every foreign market at our pleasure at the time when our farmers will benefit most.
As I have said, there has been a widespread demand for a shipping policy in Canada. The government has not always been in favour of such a policy. Back in 1943 those of us who were interested in establishing a Canadian merchant navy got quite a shock when we read a statement made by the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Michaud. I read the following from a newspaper article of December 24, 1943, in which the then minister is reported as follows:
"I see no future in Canada going into the shipping business on a big scale after the war." The minister told the Canadian press "some of the ships might well ,be used to develop trade between Canada and the West Indies and South America, but to enter competition in trade across the Atlantic and Pacific would be a big undertaking."
In 1943 what I believe was an, interdepartmental committee was set up by the government. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) referred to it the other night when he said, as reported at page 4197 of Hansard:
In October, 1943, the government appointed a special committee to investigate and advise upon future Canadian merchant shipping policy. Two important recommendations of this committee were: that merchant ships should be operated in peacetime by private enterprise; and that all government machinery dealing with merchant shipping should be coordinated. The first of these recommendations has already been fully implemented. The resolution now before the committee seeks to provide the second.
While I assume this was an interdepartmental committee, I believe persons interested in shipping, including representatives of the unions, of shipbuilding firms and1 of ship operators were called in. Apparently that committee have been working for three years. It would be of great help to us if the minister would table the report submitted by them. I should think that report would be worth while, because obviously these men have given shipping and shipbuilding careful consideration. Today however we are not in a position to refer to their recommendations.
Last year the minister was questioned about the setting up of a maritime commission. His statement appears at page 4994 of Hansard where he explained that the present functions with regard to shipping and shipbuilding are being handled by several different departments. Then he went on to say that some progress was being made in the drafting of a maritime act to be administered by a mari-
Maritime Commission

time commission, and promised that legislation would be brought down this year to set up such a commission.
We now have before us the bill setting up the commission. So far as it goes, it is all to the good. But for all practical purposes it does no more. It lays down no policy whatsoever for the development of Canadian shipping and shipbuilding, and for that reason it is a disappointment. It does not implement any policy, and it would seem the government has not yet worked out any policy for the development of Canadian shipping and shipbuilding. Apparently the government is carrying on without a policy, relying on the fact that there is still a demand for the construction of new ships, and also plenty of work for ships now operating. But it will not be long before Canada will have to have a definite shipping and shipbuilding policy.
The functions of the maritime commission, as set out in bill 336, are largely of an advisory nature. They are directed to the studying of various features having to do with shipping and shipbuilding, and the commission is directed to find facts in certain other respects. I submit all that should have been done before this by the interdepartmental committee-* and I have no doubt that to a great extent it has been done. There does not seem to be much reason for setting up a maritime commission merely to carry out another investigation of the whole problem.
It is true that the new commission is given certain minor administrative functions, but those functions are not extensive. For example, the commission is directed on behalf of the Minister of Transport to, exercise and to perform such powers, duties and functions of the minister under the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, as the minister may require. So obviously they are to have some of the administrative functions now exercised by the Minister of Transport. The commission is also directed to administer, in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council, any steamship subventions voted by parliament. That function now comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then it is directed to exercise or perform any other powers, duties or functions conferred1 on or required to be performed by the commission by or pursuant to any other act or order of the governor in council. This last provision is merely a blanket instruction.
I repeat that this bill is only a beginning, and there are certain facts in connection with it which should be considered by the house. In the first place, the bill is in general terms, leaving it to the Minister of Transport to fill in the gaps. Legislation of that kind is

unfair to the house, but we have had a lot of it from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I am afraid he has a bad habit of bringing in bills that are merely shells. He sets up the framework, and then reserves to himself, or in this instance to the Minister of Transport, the power to put in all the filling. That is a bad kind of legislation to bring before any legislative chamber.
In the bill the powers and duties of the maritime commission should be clearly defined. It should also set out government policy with respect to shipping and shipbuilding. That has been done in the United States. There they have what is known as the United States maritime commission, which was set up by an act of 1936. At the beginning of the bill establishing that commission wre find this declaration of policy:
It is necessary for the national defence and development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its domestic water-borne commerce and a substantial portion of the water-borne export and import foreign commerce of the United States and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign water-borne commerce at all times, (b) capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, (c) owned and operated under the United States flag by citizens of the United States in so far as may be practicable, and (d) composed of the best equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine.
We have absolutely no provision of this type in the Canadian bill, nor did the minister define any such policy in his statement the other night on the resolution. He is simply bringing in a skeleton bill setting up a maritime commission. In the United States act we find these duties given to the United States maritime commission:
It shall be the duty of the commission to make a survey of the American merchant marine, as it now exists, to determine what additions and replacements are required to carry forward the national policy declared in section 101 of this act, and the commission is directed to study, perfect, and adopt a long-range programme for replacements and additions to the American merchant marine so that as soon as practicable the following objectives may be accomplished:
First, the creation of an adequate and well balanced merchant fleet, including vessels of all types, to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of the foreign commerce of the United States, the vessels in sueh fleet to be so designed as to be readily and quickly convertible into transport and supply vessels in a time of national emergency. In planning the development of such a fleet the commission is directed to cooperate closely with

Maritime Commission
the navy department as to national defence needs and the possible speedy adaptation of the merchant fleet to national defence requirements.
Second, the ownership and the operation of such a merchant fleet by citizens of the United States in so far as may be practicable.
Third, the planning of vessels designed to afford the best and most complete protection for passengers and crew against fire and all marine perils.
Another point about the present bill is that it does not coordinate all government machinery. The understanding given to us the other evening was that the bill would coordinate all government machinery having to do with shipping and shipbuilding. The bill simply refers to some of the functions to be performed under the Canada Shipping Act and to the subventions. The minister knows that there are many other governmental activities having to do with shipping and shipbuilding.
In the third place, there is nothing in the bill about replacing ships as they become obsolete or of making additions to our merchant fleet or keeping the fleet up to date. We may have a good merchant fleet at the present time, but it is not going to be up to date for very long. Other maritime nations are constantly making improvements in their vessels and we cannot be satisfied with the fleet as it was during the war. There must be some provision made for keeping our merchant fleet modern.
For example, there is the question of types. How are we to get the new types of ships in Canada? The United States dealt with that problem in their bill setting up the United States maritime commission. They made provision for the setting up of a fund for the replacement of ships and sooner or later Canada will have to do something along that line. As I say, there is no provision whatever for it in the present bill.
There is nothing in the bill either for the protection or training of merchant seamen. The United States have a provision in their bill, and I quote from section 301 (a):
The commission is authorized and directed to investigate the employment and wage conditions in ocean-going shipping and, after making such investigation and after appropriate hearings, to incorporate in the contracts authorized under titles VI and VII of this act minimum-manning scales and minimum-wage scales and reasonable working conditions for all officers and crews employed on all types of vessels receiving an operating-differential subsidy.
There are further provisions in that particular part of their act having to do with merchant seamen. There is also provision for two kinds of subsidies. First of all, for what they call the construction-differential subsidy; provisions are laid down at some length for
subsidizing the construction of ships. There is no such provision in the Canadian bill. Then the United States provide for an oper-ating^differential subsidy. It may be that Canada under her subventions and subsidies policy has much the same feature, but it is not set out in the bill. At the present time subventions come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is no explanation of how Canada is to subsidize the operation of her ships or whether or not she is to do it at all.
The United States have another interesting provision in their act under the heading of "Private charter operation." Their commission is given the power, if it is necessary, to build ships and to construct them where they wish. Section 702 reads:
The commission is authorized to have constructed in domestic yards, on the Atlantic and gulf and Pacific coasts, such new vessels as it shall determine may be required to carry out the objects of this >a.ct, hikI to hxive old vessels reconditioned or remodeled in such yards: provided, that if satisfactory contracts for such new construction or reconstruction, in accordance with the provisions of this act, cannot be obtained from private shipbuilders, the commission is authorized to have such vessels constructed, reconditioned, or remodeled in United States navy yards.
In the Canadian bill there is nothing whatever about placing shipbuilding work in different parts of Canada. Apparently the government has no policy with regard to * having shipbuilding done, say in the maritimes or on the Pacific. There is no provision whatever for diverting traffic through Canadian ports, instead of having it go through United States ports as has been happening in recent months. There is no indication as to whether it is government policy to restrict coastal trade to Canadian vessels.
I repeat, the bill is a framework. I think it must be described as a shell and largely window-dressing. Perhaps it was intended to cover up the fact that the government has no policy whatever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has some ships; that is
better than having a policy.


Howard Charles Green: We had a hard time to
persuade the minister to build the ships. Apparently this bill is the best we can get at the present time. I hope it will be improved before very long. I would urge upon the minister that he take certain actions in connection with the bill. For example, I suggest that practical men be put on the commission which is to be composed of three members. It would seem reasonable that there should be a man who understands the labour point of view, a man who understands the out-
Maritime Commission

look of the shipbuilders and another who understands the outlook of the ship operators. Perhaps it would be well to have the views of these groups as to nominations for membership on the commission.
A very good feature of the bill is the one providing for advisory committees. I am not quite clear, from reading the bill, whether it is the intention to have an advisory committee in the maritimes, another on the St. Lawrence, another on the great lakes and one on the Pacific coast, or whether the advisory committees are. to be made up of representatives from labour, shipbuilding and ship operators. But any rate I think it is a very wise plan to have these advisory committees.
The 'bill makes provision for the hiring of personnel. Apparently what the explanatory note describes as "regular officers, clerks and employees" are to be civil servants, but whether the word "regular" means only the small-paid jobs or just what it does mean is not clear. There is provision in the bill foi the commission to engage direct professions and technical advisers and assistants. The minister should give consideration to having all of the personnel employed through the civil service commission, which has been bypassed far too often in legislation enacted in the last few years.
I would urge the minister not to insist upon setting up this maritime commission as a crown company. I pointed out earlier that its functions are largely advisory, with certain minor administrative duties, but I do not think these duties go beyond those carried out by many departmental branches. This commission seems to resemble the air transport board which was set up two or three years ago and was not set up as a crown corporation. I would urge that the minister keep this commission, for the time being at least, as a branch of the Department of Transport, thereby keeping it much more closely under parliamentary supervision.
The other evening the minister was asked, during the discussion on the resolution preceding the bill to establish a dominion coal board, why it was that he was setting up that board as a crown corporation, and I thought his reasons were not very good. They were in fact rather amusing. The minister gave this explanation at page 4249 of Hansard:
My hon. friend asked why this commission should take the form of a corporation. I shall have to get a more satisfactory answer to that question than I can give offhand. All I can say is that for a commission to operate and do business it seems to be necessary that they be formed into a corporation. All the commissions I know of that operate around Ottawa are formed into corporations;-

There are quite a few that are not. The minister went on:
-for example, the national research council is a corporation; as is the national harbours board.
The national harbours board owns property all over the country and has far more widespread operations than this commission will have. The minister went on:
I could mention others. I do not know why, other than that a corporation is a convenient form. It provides convenience of accounting and an accepted pattern for doing business that is lacking when three men simply form themselves into a committee.
You see, Mr. Speaker, companies in Canada are organized to do business, not to perform functions of government, but the minister seems to have forgotten that fact. Every year more of these crown companies are being launched, They are like small planets breaking off from the sun and the minister is the champion planet launcher in the cabinet. Certainly, if the government is to persist in establishing these crown companies we must have a committee of this house whose duty it will be to act as watchdog on these crown companies.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was before the house last week, the minister, if I remember correctly, stated that there were 16,000 men employed in our shipbuilding yards and that they had orders in hand for 122 various ships, which total, roughly, 300,000 gross tons. He went on to say:
The fact of the matter is that every major shipyard in Canada has all the work which it can do for the next twelve or eighteen months, which is a situation that I hope the maritime commission will be able to maintain over the years as the Department of Reconstruction has been able to maintain it over the past five or six years.
I asked the minister at that time if he could tell us where the 122 ships were being built or would be built and how many men were employed in each of our shipbuilding yards. He told me at that time that since I lived in Saint John, where the only major New Brunswick shipyard is located, I should be able to tell him the number of men employed there, and, I presume, the number of ships being built. I have no information as to the number of ships being built or the number of men employed in shipbuilding in the province of Nova Scotia. The minister went on:
I will try to give that information when the bill is being discussed.
Could the minister now tell us where the 122 ships are being built or will be built and how many men are employed in each of the

Maritime Commission
major shipyards? When the minister said, "The fact of the matter is that every major shipyard in Canada has all the work which it can do for the next twelve or eighteen months," I should like to tell him that from the inquiries I have made at the shipbuilding yard in the port of Saint John, which he says is one of the major yards, no ships are being built there at the present time.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has pointed out that this bill sets up a maritime commission but does not announce any policy. Indeed it admits that the government has no specific policy for the maintenance of Canadian steel shipbuilding in the post-war years. This is so, despite the fact that we have heard so much of a maritime commission bill in the past year, and despite the fact that all those in Canada interested in shipbuilding expected great things from the bill and from the minister. I think they will be sadly disappointed by the complete absence of any policy in the bill. This is another government promise without any performance. It is the kind of promise that can be evaded very easily when it comes to taking steps to implement it in the future. It looks to me as though this will be another case where this government will act one or two or three years too late in setting up a policy to cope with this problem, which will be a great problem if we are to maintain 16,000 people employed in the shipyards in peace time after the present war-stimulated demand for ships has lessened.
I am very apprehensive that we shall find that shipbuilding will be treated in the same way as housing, defence and immigration have been treated. We sliall find that, whatever policy is finally put into effect, it will be a little too late. Even though it may be a good policy, it will be too late to have its proper and full effect to carry out the purpose for which it was intended. To my mind, matters of this kind depend so much for their success upon them being ready and launched in time. In 1947, two years after the war, the government, having failed to produce a policy to ensure that steel shipbuilding will continue in Canada in the post-war years, is keeping shipyards and dhip operators, and those who work in these shipyards, in a state of uncertainty over the future. There is nothing like uncertainty to create inefficiency and to dry up an industry. Unless, therefore, continuity between the present demand for ships and shipbuilding and the * demand in future years is assured by a policy which will carry from the reconversion period into peace,
there is considerable danger that we shall lose t'he steel shipbuilding industry in this country, an industry of which the minister has many times said, and rightly said, that he is proud.
We do not find in the sections of the bill any determination of many points of policy that are well known to the minister and to everyone who has studied the matter. Thus even if that commission gets going now we cannot have any recommendations they might make implemented until 1948 at the earliest, when the act could be amended, and probably not until 1949. That will be three or four years after the end of the war. When we bear in mind that it takes about two years to build a ship from the time it is originally decided to build it, it may well be that we shall be past the time when there is a demand throughout the world for shipbuilding facilities, and that Canadians engaged in the shipping trade, who have no assurance from the government as to what the future of the trade will be, will have to forget their natural inclinations to deal in Canada, and go elsewhere to place their orders for ships, getting the best terms they can.
This commission is set up to perform, under the Canada Shipping Act, certain duties which somebody else is now doing; to administer subsidies which are now being paid by some other department of government; to make investigations which, I believe, have already been made to a considerable extent and Which certainly dhould have been made by the officials of the Department of Transport in the past. One of its chief purposes, too, is to make a policy which the government should have made years ago. I think that people interested in this business have considerable cause for alarm. When I say that, I am not unmindful of the fact that everyone expected a much more definite and forward policy than this.
I want to ask the minister, when he replies, to tell us why we could not have that longterm policy for the maintenance of a steel shipbuilding industry in Canada now. The member for Vancouver South referred to what the minister said, as reported at page 4197 of Hansard, about the interdepartmental committee on shipbuilding which was set up in 1943, and which reported, I presume, within a year or so from that date. They must have made recommendations as to what would be required if we were to keep the industry in Canada. Great Britain, the United States and Australia have all announced their policies; those in United States and Great Britain were announced before the war, and
Maritime Commission

Australia's in the summer of 1945. They know definitely what they will do, but again, Canada does not know.
I would ask the minister why there is this delay in announcing a policy. I would point out to the house that the establishment of the broad lines of any shipbuilding policy does not require any basic research. We have ample examples of what can be done and what has been done in practice in other countries, and in other countries which have the same system of government as ours and the same problems and needs. The United States maritime commission administers restrictions on coastwise trade; the retirement of old vessels, and their scrapping or sale abroad in order to keep the merchant fleet modern; and already, even since the war, some of the old United States ships have been sold into Canada. I understand that two which are forty-six years old came under the Canadian flag in 1945. These old ships are not the kind we should have in our merchant marine.
If you look at the history between the wars you find that many United States ships were sold into the Canadian trade, more than were constructed in Canada, and again these ships were brought from the United States when they were very old. While I do not know this of my own knowledge, I would not be surprised if some of these ships had been sold from under the American flag by reason of the policies of the United States maritime commission.
I suggest that there is not a great deal of time to wait before deciding whether we shall allow other countries with a maritime policy to dump old ships on us or to compete with us by means of special assistance.
In Great Britain, the British shipping assistance act was passed in 1939. Under that act a definite policy of loans and grants for the construction and operation of tramp steamers was provided, and in particular a "liner defence committee" was set up which had the specific purpose of administering subsidies in the construction and operation of liners, if these liners were meeting foreign subsidized competition, and not otherwise.
The minister, at page 4209 of Hansard, in his remarks in the resolution stage, was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South whether it was government policy to subsidize shipbuilding in Canada. I wonder what the minister meant by saying, "No, not at the present time"? It seems to suggest that at some time in the future he might be considering subsidizing ship construction in Canada. Then again, if that is his intention, I say, why leave the matter in doubt? Why leave it uncertain? It is all very well to say that the shipyards have a considerable number of orders on hand at the present time, but that will not continue indefinitely. Delay in the determination of this important question can do a great deal of damage.
Earlier in his statement, and referring to the duty of the commission, the minister said, as reported at page 4209 of Hansard, that it will be its duty:
... to recommend such incentives as may be needed to induce private industry to build a different type of ship or to modernize its fleet; and certainly it will be. the function of the commission to advise the minister of any steps that should be taken to stimulate Shipbuilding in Canada and make it competitive with shipbuilding in other countries.
I want to urge the minister to make very sure that he take those steps in time, if he is to take them at all; I think this government has given us plenty of evidence on the other matters I have mentioned, such as housing and immigration, that it is not always inclined to do things in time. If we are to maintain steel shipbuilding in Canada, we must depend primarily upon our own shipowners and operators to provide the solid core of any continuing shipbuilding business. Those operators are not catered to at all in this bill. They must know the conditions they face if they are to make their commitments far enough in advance. If they are to assume that there is no government policy, they will be obliged to look around and shop in world markets and to make sure that they protect themselves adequately against possible recessions in business in the future. If, as is quite commonly talked of and practised, I believe, in many' maritime countries, there are to be any special considerations given to those shipowners in order that they may build up funds wherewith to build new ships in Canada, the longer that policy is delayed, the less able will be those shipowners to carry on in the face of bitter competition, which may arise in future years.
In Canada our shipbuilding is under the competitive disadvantage that our wage scales are high and we have not a long history of steel shipbuilding behind us so that we may produce with much greater efficiency than other countries. If the minister really intends that there shall be a continuing industry in Canada, I am sure there is nothing which could be more important than that the industry and the people working in, it should have the assurance that they can go into it,

Maritime Commission
improve their methods, and be secure for some time ahead in the carrying on of that business and making it competitive with that of other countries.
Another thing which I consider would cater to the continuation of the industry, and which,
1 understand, is not now being done, is the making available to the shipyards of an adequate supply of steel. I am well aware that the minister has difficulties in dishing out steel to everyone in Canada who needs it, but I understand that the present allotment of steel to shipyards is not sufficient to enable them to gain the greatest efficiency of effort and to meet delivery dates as certainly as they might otherwise be able to do. Without criticizing the minister's policy in this respeqt, I suggest to him that one thing which could be done to keep the shipyards in operation for a long time in the future, would be to make sure that they get enough materials so that they may accept orders which are coming to Canada in these times of great demand and build up a reputation around the world for Canadian ships and for meeting delivery dates certainly.
I cannot help feeling that this bill which was brought in with a great deal of eclat and grand references-and most proper ones-to the good; job done by the Canadian merchant fleet during the war, could be just a stall, although I am not saying it is. It could be that the government is talking big, but is really hedging its bets on whether or not we are to have a continuing shipbuilding industry in Canada. That doubt will remain in my mind until the government has said yes or no to the definite principles which have been followed by other countries in the development and maintenance of their shipbuilding and ship operation programme.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East); I hesitate to speak on this bill because, from reading it, I was not clear as to its ultimate purpose. The minister may have it -all worked out as to what the functions of the maritime commission are to be and how it will fit into the Canadian shipbuilding industry, but at -the moment I do not think it is clear in the bill. On the other hand, I am equally in the dark after listening to my two hon. friends from Vancouver. I do not know exactly what they want. Do they want the government to subsidize shipbuilding? Perhaps that would be a risky business at this moment. I do not know. However, in my opinion, if the government is to have a definite shipping programme, it is inevitable that it should go into the shipbuilding and ship operating
business and do it for the economic benefit of Canada, without insisting that it pay its own way at all times.
I was not in the house when the minister made his statement in moving the resolution, but I read what he said at that time.
It is interesting to note what happened following the first great war; because if we have not a programme somewhat different from the programme we had at that time the same thing is likely to happen now. I should like to read a very short paragraph from the minister's statement, at page 4195 of Hansard. He pointed out that as at 1919 the government owned some sixty-three ships; then he said;
The entire fleet therefore only commenced to earn revenue after the armistice; and by the time all the ships were in service the post-war boom in shipping was over -and freight rates had dropped more than fifty per cent. The cost to build this fleet at the peak of shipyard prices was approximately $80 million.
If on this occasion the government-owned ships had not been disposed of earlier than was the case on the former occasion, the government might have been able to take advantage of the high shipping rates and the good business now available. It is interesting to study the statistics of shipbuilding and ship repairing in Canada between world war I and world war II; that is between 1917 and 1942. Statistics on the subject can be found in the brief prepared by the shipbuilding and ship repairing association and referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). On page 42 it contains a table which shows that the high peak following the first war was in 1919, when there were in Canada seventy-eight establishments; the gross value of products was S186,500,000, in round figures; salaried employees numbered 1.384 and wage employees 22,318, with wages of approximately $27,000,000. Then activity began to drop, so that by 1933, which was the low year, there were thirty-eight establishments; the gross value of the product was only $4,521,000; salaried employees numbered only 369, and manual employees, 1,885, with a total annual wage of $1,964,000. The shipbuilding and ship repairing industry just disappeared, and- that was only a few years before the beginning of world war II. Then it began to go up again, until in 1942 there were seventy-nine establishments with a gross value of product of $242,000,000; salaried employees numbering 2,868, and manual or wage employees numbering 47,264, with total wages of over $87,000,000. I do not know the number of workers today, but I think someone said there were 18.000. Nor do I know the gross value of the product;
Maritime Commission

but unless there is a demand for shipping which will make the operation of ships a profitable venture for private enterprise, there will be no shipbuilding; and unless my friends are willing to have the government go into shipbuilding itself, I do not see that there is any other policy that will produce ships.
I intend to reserve anything further I have to say until we are in committee and the functions of the maritime commission becomes clear. However, since labour employed on the ships and in building the ships has an interest in the shipping business of this country, I would1 suggest that the minister give consideration to having labour represented on this commission, so that there may be cooperation between all factors connected with the industry.


William Ross Macdonald: If the right hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have listened with interest to the debate on the second reading of this bill. It seems to me the principal complaint is that in drafting this bill we have not attempted to usurp the functions of parliament. All matters covered by the bill are functions being performed by government agencies at the present time. The purpose of the bill is to correlate those agencies and gradually to bring them under a single directing force.
The bill seeks to set up an authoritative body to advise the government on shipping and shipbuilding matters and to administer certain matters relating to those industries. The proposed commission is to consist of three full-time officials who, as a body corporate, will be responsible to and subject to the direction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I might explain that there is nothing sinister about the form of organization known as a body corporate. It should not be confused with the crown companies set up under the Companies Act of Canada, for which provision was made in a bill passed by the last parliament. It is simply declared a corporation in drafting the act, and functions as a corporation. The purpose is merely to bring three men together so that in their executive work they may function as an entity. The commission will be staffed by the civil service commission in the usual manner, and that is a clause I would hardly expect to be criticized by anyone. There is provision that with the approval of the governor in council the commission may employ professional and technical advisers and assistants for temporary periods and for specific work.

Obviously occasions may arise when it will be necessary to employ people with special knowledge to perform special duties for temporary periods.
The function of the commission in its advisory capacity is to consider and recommend to the minister such policies and measures as it considers necessary for the operation, maintenance, manning and development of a merchant marine and a shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, commensurate with our maritime needs. It seems to me that statement of functions is comprehensive, and in accordance with the desires of those who have spoken in this debate. In order to fulfil this function, the commission will have to ascertain and record a number of matters concerning our own industries and those of other nations. On its administrative side it is intended that it shall act on behalf of the minister in dealing with certain responsibilities which are vested in him by the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. It will also absorb the duties now performed by the steamship subsidies section of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It will be available to absorb other suitable administrative duties which may be allotted to it from time to time.
The expenses of the commission will be paid from appropriations duly authorized by parliament, and the commission will render an annual report of its activities to parliament through the Minister of Transport.
I might point out that all the policies of the commission will require to be approved by parliament, because the only funds which will be available to the commission to carry out its policies will be those funds voted by parliament from time to time.
In drafting the bill, we have endeavoured to provide in the commission a ready and accessible point of contact between the government and all sections of the shipping and shipbuilding industries. In this connection, hon. members will note that a special reference is made to the setting up of advisory committees by the commission, which will enable it to obtain all the points of view of the parties concerned in any particular matter.
It is our thought, amongst others, that a standing advisory committee consisting of representatives of ship operators, shipbuilders, 'and seafaring personnel should be set up as soon as possible, which will provide a forum for discussion on a number of matters concerning the efficiency and development of the industries.
There is also a need today for a well-informed government agency to represent the nation's views in various international shipping

Maritime Commission
matters which from time to time are called into discussion by the united nations and related organizations.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the government is of the opinion, that the setting up of an organization directly concerned with Canadian shipping and shipbuilding problems is now desirable. One of its functions will be to assume responsibility for any continuing government-owned merchant, ships now being operated through the agency of Park Steamship Company, Limited.
In moving the second, reading of the bill, I would again emphasize that we seek from its provisions cooperation with private enterprise but not control of it. The bill does not represent any change in the policy which we have previously adopted., but provides only what we believe and hope will be a more up-to-date medium for carrying out that policy.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) mentioned that we are a maritime people. I agree; Canadians take to the sea naturally, and this will provide an outlet for the aspirations of our people in that direction. He mentioned that during the war our merchant marine reached a peak of 18,000 Canadian seamen. The publication from which the hon. member quoted, the 1946 Year Book of the Canadian merchant service guild, mentions that at March 31, 1946, there were
12,000	Canadian seamen employed on Canadian ships. The last tabulation of the Department of Labour indicates that about 14,000 Canadian seamen are employed on Canadian ships at the present time.
The suggestion was made that we should freeze government policy. It is felt that by doing so we would bring more security into the lives of Canadian workers. I suggest that if we were to freeze government policy at this day, the policy would be to say that the shipbuilding fraternity and ship operating fraternity are doing exceedingly well, and are well able to look after themselves. Earnings in both branches of the industry at the present time are abnormally high. I know of no feeling of uncertainty in the minds of those engaged in the industry. It seems to me the greatest peril they have to face is that there might be a change of government in this country. But since there is no indication of that on the horizon, it seems to me that both branches of the industry can proceed, with reasonable security, and that the government which has brought the industry to its present satisfactory position will be able to look after it in the future.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do not be too sure of that. A new government would do a much better job.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps not. That is what the industry is worrying about.


Gordon Graydon: And you see that they keep on worrying, don't you?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I should relieve their worries as much as possible when I speak at this time.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has compared the present situation with that after the last great war. He suggested that the same result is inevitable. I would point out the difference between the position after this war and that after the last one. The first difference is that the shipbuilding programme of the first great war was undertaken in 1918 and finished, I believe, in 1921. In other words, it was not a wartime shipbuilding programme; it was a postwar shipbuilding programme. Then the ships were carried at their construction costs, and the construction costs of a high-cost period. In the present instance our present fleet of ships was built during the war. True, they were built in a period of rising costs, nevertheless the great bulk of the fleet was built under cost levels which today look very reasonable indeed.
The policy has been to dispose of the ships to private interests, and I would point out another substantial difference: the ships were not disposed of to private interests at their cost price. They were disposed of to private interests at a price which a committee of experts believed represented the level at which the ships might profitably be operated in the future.
The suggestion has been made that there should be provision for a replacement fund. Provision has been made for a replacement fund. These ships were sold under arrangements which provided for double depreciation, and also provided that in the first year of operation there could be an additional writeoff of thirteen per cent of the cost. In other word^, the ships could be written off at twenty-five per cent of their cost in the first year, and at twelve per cent of their cost for each succeeding year. The result of that provision will be that the money invested in the ships can be recovered within a reasonable period of time, and the funds recovered can be made available to finance a ship replacement programme.
Then it has been suggested that there should be provision in the bill for protection and training of seamen. I point out to hon.
Maritime Commission

members that existing legislation makes ample provision for the protection and training of seamen. The commission will, of course, examine existing legislation, correlate it, and recommend to the government any changes in existing legislation which should be made from time to time, for the purpose of strengthening the over-all legislation in any particular.
To sum up, the bill provides a framework for coordinating the work of all government departments which have to do with shipbuilding or ship operating. It will provide a new approach to the problems of the future. Practical men will have an opportunity of making recommendations to the government which will be useful in meeting new developments in the industry; and at each session parliament will be able to review the work of the board and to implement such recommendations as the government -feels are desirable to cope with the future of the industry.


William Irvine: What would be likely to
happen if the commission were to report to the administration that, for instance, there was a scarcity of facilities for the building of ships, that marine insurance was too high, or something of that kind? How would the government proceed to take care of that? Would they undertake to build dry docks at the expense of the government, or would they command those now in the business to expand their facilities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are ample provisions today in the law to take care of the situations to which my hon. friend has referred. There is the federal Dry Docks Subsidies Act administered by the Department of Public Works, under which any body of men who desire to build a dry dock can approach the government for subsidy assistance. Means could be found to implement any recommendation of the commission, whether for the enlargement of shipbuilding activities or to enlarge or improve the fleet. Almost any recommendation that I can think of could be handled by the existing law.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert asked about shipbuilding in the maritimes. I have some figures here showing the number employed in shipyards in the maritimes:
March	 3,219
April	 3,090
May	 2,990
The figures for the whole of Canada are as follows:
March	 16,820
April	 17.489
May	   18,202


Mr. BROOKS:: The trend there is entirely different from that in the maritimes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us be sensible about this. Employment in shipyards fluctuates owing to the stage of each shipyard's programme. For example, at Halifax they are in the process of finishing two destroyers and they have just undertaken to build three ships for Argentina at a cost of $7,000,000. In the interval men are doing repair work. The best employer is a combination of the two, shipbuilding and repair work, but certain yards prefer to specialize on repair work, and I understand that that is the situation at Saint John. These yards are operated privately, and all I can say is that there is so much shipbuilding work offering around the world that anyone who really looks for that type of work cannot help but find all he cares to undertake. That is all I can say about shipbuilding in the maritime provinces, and I think this covers all I have to say on second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Howard Charles Green: Could the minister fable the report of the intergovernmental committee which investigated this whole question of shipping and shipbuilding?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it was a private report.


Howard Charles Green: It is a confidential report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: AH reports from civil servants to their ministers are confidential.


Howard Charles Green: Were people engaged in the industry called in, in connection with the work of that committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The committee was made up of civil servants and it took evidence from witnesses from the trade.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: Why is the set-up here so different from the United States maritime commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two different forms of government and two different legislative bodies are concerned. I cannot think of any reason why it should be the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Corporation established.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: This section provides that the commission may enter into contracts on behalf of His Majesty, but there is no pro-

Maritime Commission
vision for the commission to make contracts on its own behalf or to sue or be sued. Is it intended that the commisison acting in the capacity of time charterer for one of the Park steamship vessels could be sued by the other party?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The commission can contract only in the name of His Majesty. It is like a government department, which I understand to be the form my hon. friend advocates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Officers, clerks and employees.
Howard Charles Green: Why is it not possible to get technical and professional men through the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The method employed by the civil service commission is to advertise for two months and then have a board examine the applicants and report. It takes usually six months to get a senior officer through the civil service commission. The maritime commission could hardly wait that long in the case of an emergency. My hon. friend has spoken of flexibility and speed in making decisions to meet emergencies. For instance, someone has said that one great problem in the shipbuilding industry is to get sufficient steel. Would my hon. friend suggest that they meet that problem by applying to the civil service commission for a steel expert?


Howard Charles Green: The commission do not
supply steel. What has that to do with the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend suggests a provision that they should not get technical help except through the commission, but I think it would be rather hopeless if they had a situation of that kind and had to rely upon the commission for help.


Howard Charles Green: If it takes the civil service commission six months to get technical or professional men, perhaps some changes should be made in the administration. Will any of the professional or technical men engaged by the maritime commission be engaged through the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will be if they are permanent employees, but not necessarily if they are employed for a temporary period.


Howard Charles Green: It says, "or for specific work."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Specialized, short-term jobs.


Angus MacInnis: I am wondering about the meaning of "temporary." There are many
civil servants who have been temporary from youth to old age, but I would not suppose that "temporary" as used here would apply to such civil servants. I would be inclined to agree that for short periods of time and for temporary purposes we should not insist that they be selected by the civil service commission, but if they are to be just called temporary employees and carried on the staff, as a large percentage of employees now are, I think they should be recruited through the civil service commission.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is thinking of temporary men while the bill is referring to a temporary period. The purpose is that men engaged for temporary periods will be employed outside of the civil service commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Powers of commission.
Mr. PEARKES:: I have been informed that one of the bottlenecks in the shipbuilding industry is the lack of designers. I presume that that will be covered by the investigators carried on by this commission.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some progress has been made toward correcting that situation. It was a serious lack in the early days of the war, but shipbuilders have formed themselves into an association and have arranged to exchange and pool talent in designing ships. There is now an exchange of designers between the yards, and efforts will continue to be made to build up the strength of Canada's designing staffs.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: The minister, in his explanation of the bill, said that Park steamships to a large extent stopped the transference of ships to foreign registry. Will this commission be given the power to stop the transference of ships to foreign registry? Suppose a ship is outfitting in Vancouver and it decides to register in Panama and to import men to man the boat. That boat should be manned by Canadian seamen since it is being outfitted in a Canadian port. Will the commission be given power to do what was done to a large extent with Park Steamships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every ship that was sold by Park Steamships to Canadians was sold with the proviso that the owner could not apply to the government for a change of registry. That takes care of that situation.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: For how
long?
Maritime Commission


Clarence Decatur Howe: For an indefinite period. The board will have power to advise the minister whether to permit change of registry or not and will advise the minister with regard to admitting foreign ships to Canadian register. Provision is already made in our legislation covering the latter point; provision was made in the sale of the ships to cover the first point, and neither will in future be acted on by the minister, I would assume, without the advice of the maritime commission.


Howard Charles Green: Will the recommendations made by the commission be available to parliament? Provision is made here for the commission to make recommendations on various aspects of shipping and shipbuilding policy. Will parliament have an opportunity of seeing those recommendations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The commission are civil servants under a minister and therefore their recommendations to the minister will be privileged, as is the case with all recommendations of civil servants to ministers.


Howard Charles Green: Provision is also made for the commission to examine into, ascertain and keep records on various matters, including the type, size, speed and other requirements of the vessels which, in the opinion of the commission, should be employed. Once it has made that investigation, has the commission power to do anything about the matter, or has the government power to do anything about it so that we can have the right type of ships built?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such matters involve money. If the government believes that a certain type of ship is desirable, and1 the shipbuilders will not build it without assistance, the commission can recommend to the minister that provision be made to grant the required assistance and the minister can bring an estimate before parliament. If parliament approves, the assistance can be given.


Howard Charles Green: That is the scheme the minister has in mind, that if the commission recommends that faster ships be built in Canada the shipbuilding firms will be paid whatever is required to produce those ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that, in deference to the opposition and to confirm with about half the speeches I have heard in this parliament, I have taken great care to see that parliament is in complete control so far as aid to shipping is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is learning at last.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Section 7 does not refer in terms to any government vessels. What

power will the maritime commission have in respect of vessels owned by the Canadian government which are not engaged in ordinary commercial trade? Would the establishment of a coastguard come within the purview of the commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In matters of that kind the commission will have just the powers that the minister agrees to delegate to it from time to time.


Howard Charles Green: Is power given to the commission to allocate shipbuilding, to 'have it carried on in one part of the country or in another part?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: A vexed question concerns foreign ships engaged in our coastwise trade. Will the commission have power to advise on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under existing law, foreign ships are prohibited from engaging in coastwise trade.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I mean ships other than Canadian-built ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any provision of that kind is a matter of government policy. The commission will have the opportunity of expressing its views to the minister, and the minister will require action by parliament to change the existing situation.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would it be the duty of the commission to make recommendations on that kind of matter without specific orders from the minister?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly. The commission will be expected to recommend any measure which in its opinion will improve the position of ship operations and shipbuilding, but whether the minister and the government accept their recommendations is for the latter to decide.


Mr. GILLIS:: The hon. member for Skeena first raised the question he referred to this afternoon several months ago and the position is still tangled. Park steamships were being sold in the United States; United States crews were taking those ships to Canadian ports and being discharged, and Chinese crews were imported to man those ships under foreign registry and then were allowed to sail to Canadian ports. When this matter was first raised it was referred to immigration, to ascertain whether under our immigration regulations crews could be brought into Canada and allowed to sail on Canadian ships. The matter was not cleared up to my satis-

Maritime Commission
faction, and the point raised iby the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is whether it would be the function of this commission to see to it that Canadian ships sailing from Canadian ports would be manned by Canadian crews. Section 7 seemed to give the commission a good deal of latitude, and if they exercise that latitude they could eliminate the grievance raised by the two Vancouver members. Could the minister be specific on that question as to whether the commission would have the function of determining the crews that would sail from Canada on Canadian ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is raising an issue that is not realistic. The records of the Park Steamship Company indicate that no ship was sold to United States interests, with two exceptions. Two very badly damaged ships, which Park steamships believed should be sold in the damaged condition rather than repaired, for reasons of prudent economy, were thus disposed of; but there were no serviceable ships sold to United States interests. As to what became of those two ships, I have no information. The Canada Shipping Act governs the employment of seamen on Canadian ships, and it will be the duty of the maritime commission to examine that act and to recommend any changes which, in its opinion, would strengthen and improve the act and bring about an improvement in conditions.


Clarence Gillis: That still does not answer the question. It may be true that Park steamships have not sold ships in the United States, but is it true that American ships can be manned by American seamen, come into Canadian ports where the American seamen are discharged, the ship put under Panamanian registry, and sail from Canada being manned by Chinese or imported seamen? That complaint has been made specifically by the Canadian seamen's union. It is well known to many members of the house. The matter was raised about three months ago and was referred to the immigration authorities and we were assured by them that it was not in accordance with their regulations.
All I want to be clear about is this. If this maritime commission, which is a desirable one, and something that we have been advocating for a considerable time, is to have supreme jurisdiction in regulating the crews that will be sailing on Canadian ships from Canadian ports, and determining also conditions and so forth, so that we may get away from this bootlegging system which has developed since the close of the war. whereby
ships are sold and the merchant marine services in different countries are scrapped, thereby getting around our regulations in the manner disclosed in this house, then I am satisfied. A United States crew comes in on a ship. That crew is discharged and the ship is then manned by an imported crew under Panamanian registry and is allowed to sail.
During the war we had considerable difficulty, in the earlier stages at least, when scrap was prohibited from leaving the United States to go to any other country. They would clear from the United States and come to a Canadian port where the crew could be discharged and another crew put on board, and so they could clear from Canada to Japan and deliver scrap to that country, which scrap was later used against ourselves. From discussions I have heard, and from a brief which I read from the seamen's union, that kind of thing is going on again, to the detriment of the development of our own merchant service and our own seamen as well as to the detriment of the British merchant service. Some United States interests are developing a bootlegging system whereby they can get cheap labour. When they cannot clear from a United States port under other conditions they get around their own regulations by clearing from a port in Canada. If this commission has power to stop that, I am satisfied with the clause.


Angus MacInnis: The section does not give the commission any authority to enforce or to establish. It merely says that it may examine into, ascertain and keep records of and advise any such authority as was suggested by the member for Cape Breton South. Perhaps the power is contained in the next section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is correct. There are existing statutes covering the points raised. It is the duty of the commission to examine into those statutes and recommend improvements in them in order to carry out the purpose intended, and to submit such recommendations to the minister for his action in obtaining appropriate legislation. A United States ship is under the supervision of the United States government. It can come to Canadian ports for certain purposes, but one of the purposes is not to discharge the crew. If the crew deserts, then the deserters are sent back to the countries from which they came; but certainly, under any law of Canada, the captain could not discharge the crew in a Canadian port and take on a different crew. The action of the ship is governed by the law of the country whose flag the ship flies. As far
Maritime Commission

as immigration is concerned, there are certain actions which this country does not allow, and if there are any infractions it will be the duty of the maritime commission to bring them to the attention of the appropriate minister to see that they do not continue.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: A hull was taken out of the port of Seattle, manned by a United States crew, brought to Vancouver and outfitted in the drjr dock there, andt the owners told1 the seafarers international union, "We wall put this vessel under Panamanian registry and import a crew and put that crew on."


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so, but the ship was a United States vessel. It never at any time, I take it, 'became a Canadian ship.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The point is that it is under Canadian jurisdiction while it is in our port, and we should not be responsible, for pulling off fast ones such as that. I read a report from London which indicated that there is a world ship racket at the present time to put hulls under Panamanian registry where there are no maritime laws at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
On section 8-Duties of commission.
Howard Charles Green: What functions under the
Canada Shipping Act are to be turned over to the commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter for the
minister to determine from time to time. The commission as set up is advisory to the minister on matters dealt with in the Canada Shipping Act. The minister may or may not turn over executive functions in connection with the act. All such functions are performed by certain departments of government at the moment, whether they will continue to be so performed or whether they will be turned over to the commission to be performed by it, is a matter for the minister to decide.


Howard Charles Green: Has any decision been
reached as to what functions are to be turned over at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: There is a strong agitation
for amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Apparently the act has not been amended for many years. Can the minister say whether

it is the intention to go over it carefully with the idea of bringing it up to date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Amendments are being considered. The advice of the commission will be sought in a further examination of the shipping act.


Howard Charles Green: Is it expected that the act
will be amended at the next session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I should think so.


Howard Charles Green: The second paragraph of
section 8 deals with steamship subventions. What is the policy at the present time with regard to subventions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy is to maintain
services on certain internal routes in Canada which cannot be self-supporting under the rate structure that the government considers equitable. The needs of the service are examined and the subsidy is fixed at an amount which will permit the service to operate.


Howard Charles Green: What about shipping
abroad ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no present subsidies for external shipping. There does not seem to be any need for any at the moment. The earnings of foreign lines would appear to be ample to permit the companies to carry on without subsidies.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time the
Department of Trade and Commerce decides what subventions are to be paid, I take it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament decides the subventions. The Department of Trade and Commerce recommend them. My hon. friend will find in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce the subventions which are currently being paid.


Howard Charles Green: Just how is the maritime
commission to fit into that picture? Is it to have the power to recommend subventions direct, or does it merely look into all the facts and then recommend subventions to the minister who, in turn, recommends them to parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The functions will be administered by the commission. The paragraph reads:
(b) administer, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, any steamship subventions voted by parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean just the
mechanics of paying out subventions, or does it include the power to decide what lines are to get subventions and how large the subventions are to be?

Maritime Commission


Clarence Decatur Howe: Power to recommend to the minister. Only parliament can vote the money for subsidies. The commission will recommend to the minister, and the minister, if he sees fit, will recommend to parliament the subventions which are required.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is the third power given in paragraph (c), to:
exercise or perform any other powers, duties or functions conferred on or required to be performed by the commission by or pursuant to any other act or order of the governor in council.
Can the minister give us any indication what type of functions it is proposed to turn over to the commission under that particular paragraph?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If in a future year the government should pass a bill giving assistance to shipyards, the commission would administer that bill. Likewise, if the government passed a bill subsidizing the construction of steamships, the commission would administer that bill. If any functions now performed by a department of government were turned over to the commission by the minister, the commission would perform those functions.


John Bracken: The minister pointed out that parliament determined the subventions. I think a wrong meaning might be taken from that. I gather that parliament gives the government power to pay out subventions, but that the government or some agency of the government-in this case the commission -determines what companies may get subventions and what the amount of the subventions may be. I think I am correct in that interpretation, but I am asking for information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister determines the amount of the subventions that he will recomment to parliament, and the subventions are set out in detail in the estimates. If my hon. friend will look at page 54 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, he will find listed there all the subventions to the various companies. Parliament will be asked to vote those subventions.


John Bracken: Then the correct position is this. The exact subvention for a given company appears in the estimates and is passed there, and the government is controlled by that vote. In that event, neither the government nor the commission has power to alter the amount or the rate of subvention as outlined in the estimates. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not in as good a position as I might be to answer that. I see no vote here except specific votes for specific items. There may be a general vote, but I see none in the estimates.


John Bracken: Then in asking for his estimates the minister outlines the companies that are to get this aid, and I suppose at the same time he outlines and tries to satisfy the house as to the rate of assistance to be given.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Bracken: Then under this legislation you are limited by the amount of the subvention for a given company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is so.


Angus MacInnis: I just want to get my own ideas on this point clarified. According to section 3(2), this commission is an agent of His Majesty, which, I take it, means an agent of the government, and it can do only such things as the government may refer to it as outlined in this act. If a steamship company should make application for a subsidy or subvention the minister may ask the commission to investigate the matter and make a recommendation as to the subsidy or subvention that would be satisfactory in the circumstances. Then, if the minister agreed with the recommendation he would put an item in the estimates, and it would then be up to parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time, as I understand it, the Department of Trade and Commerce have control of these subventions, for the reason that the subvention is used primarily to get our goods to certain countries; that is, as far as subventions to foreign-going vessels are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no subventions to foreign vessels.


Howard Charles Green: Not to foreign vessels, but to vessels carrying goods to foreign countries.
Mr. HOW'E: There are none at the moment, as far as I know.


Howard Charles Green: But before the war that was one of the main purposes of the subventions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: For example, I think assistance was given in order to have shipping available to take lumber from British Columbia to the West Indies, South Africa and other places. The subvention primarily was not to help shipping but to promote our foreign trade. Is that not so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; it had both purposes.


Howard Charles Green: Under this new set-up, does the Department of Trade and Commerce have nothing whatever to do with the subvention? Where does it come into the picture?
Maritime Commission


Clarence Decatur Howe: The administration will be transferred to the maritime commission. The Department of Trade and Commerce can make representations to the maritime commission, just as any other department can.


Mr. McLURE:: Perhaps the minister has already done so, but if not I should like him to explain just how the subsidies will be administered. Take the subsidy on the ferry from Wood Island to Cariboo, for instance. The government pays a subsidy of so much. Is this subsidy then passed on to the commission to be administered and to decide whether they will increase or reduce it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In establishing a subsidy the governor in council lays down the regulations under which it may be paid, and the maritime commission would administer those regulations.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is that not just a duplication of work already done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is the other man that does the work?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The question is, who has been doing it? The subsidy is paid over by the department that voted it; now it has to be voted and then passed over to the commission, and they will adjust it later.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Will this make it possible to discuss the Canada Shipping Act intelligently in this house? I am serious in that question. Suppose I want to discuss that act with the Minister of Transport. I come to a certain point and I am told it refers to the Minister of Health. The next point refers to the Minister of Labour, the next to the Minister of Trade and) Commerce, and so on. Actually you cannot discuss the Canada Shipping Act as a unit on the floor of this house. If this bill will make it possible to discuss that act under the maritime commission it will have accomplished something anyway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the bill is to centralize all matters having to do with shipping and the operation of ships under the maritime commission. It may take time to do that, but I think the objective set by my hon. friend1 will be achieved in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Advisory committees.
Howard Charles Green: Are there to be any regional committees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The act states that there are to be committees. I do not know whether they will be regional.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to set up committees, say in the maritimes and on the Pacific coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the statement in the bill is that they will be functional committees rather than regional. I do not see why regional committees would be particularly required.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Receipts and expenditures to be audited.
Howard Charles Green: Is it anticipated that there will be any receipts by the commission itself from its own operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That depends on the duties given the commission. Certain departments of the government have revenues. If those departments continue to carry on their present functions those revenues will accrue to the departments. If those revenue-producing functions are turned over to the commission, I suppose the revenue will accrue to the commission. In either case, however, it would be paid to the receiver general, so that it would not alter the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to. [DOT]
On section 14-Coming into force.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: When does the minister anticipate the maritime commission will be set up and the members appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is anticipated that the commission will be set up as soon as we find the proper men to form it, and as soon as the machinery can be made ready. I cannot say whether it will be one month or two months or three months.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 340, to establish the dominion coal board.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the minister going to make a statement on this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made an extended statement at the time the resolution was intro-

Dominion Coal Board
duced, which I think covers the situation for the moment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to say a few words, because, as we all realize, this is an important bill. I believe the hopes of a great many people in Canada rest upon the success of this board. Much of the discussion during the debate on the resolution was devoted to the question of whether the board should be under one of the departments, or whether it should be independent. As we look back over the history of coal legislation in the dominion, we find that a good many attempts have been made to develop the industry in this country. In 1917, as the minister told us the other day, we had a coal controller. In 1932 we had the dominion fuel board. In 1939 we had a coal administrator. In 1942 we had the emergency coal production board, and now we are trying something else. I understand that this bill has the approval of the operators throughout Canada and also the approval of labour, so that not very much can be said in opposition to the introduction of a measure of this kind. There is provision for seven members on the board, and I suggest that great care should be taken in choosing them. There are five coal producing provinces in Canada, and in fairness to each of those districts or provinces I believe there should be a member from each of them on the board.
As the minister pointed out the other day, no two sections of Canada have the same problems. So far as the maritime provinces are concerned, the problems in Nova Scotia are different from those in New Brunswick. We in New Brunswick have been told that we produce only two per cent of the coal. Nevertheless our coal production is important to us, and I hope that when the board is set up the minister will give consideration to the appointment of a member from New Brunswick.
In the past we have suffered greatly from being linked with Nova Scotia; and I do not say that to the detriment of Nova Scotia, at all. Everyone knows, however, that in Nova Scotia one large company dominates the coal situation. Their interests are entirely different from those of the small operators in New Brunswick; and if only one representative is chosen from the maritime provinces I am satisfied that the difficulties we shall have in the future will be just the same as those we have had in the past. I repeat that when the board is chosen I hope the minister will consider adding a member from New Brunswick.
While the Dominion Coal Company produces about ninety per cent of the coal of Nova Scotia, there are a number of small operators in that province who are in much the same position as we are; and they, of course, should receive consideration.
Another matter that I would bring to the attention of the minister is the wages and employment situation in some parts of the maritimes. We are told there is a surplus of labour; but this condition does not always apply to the mining districts. I know that in the Minto area at the present time there is difficulty in getting men to go into the mines. While there are men without employment in New Brunswick, there are very few available for mining purposes. I understand that some of the operators have applied to have mining labour brought from Europe, but they have been refused1. Mining employment is entirely different from other types of employment, and I hope the board will consider this matter as well as others in connection with coal production.
As I said at the outset, I believe this is a bill which has the general approval of the operators and of labour throughout the Country. I have no serious criticism to make of it, and I sincerely hope it will solve the tremendous problem we have in Canada in connection with coal production.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I. too, shall speak briefly, because I am pleased that an honest-to-goodness effort is now to be made to solve Canada's coal problem. I speak now as a consumer and from the consumer's point of view, as one who uses and has had to use large quantities of coal. Consumers are today harassed to death by the announcements which appear in the press from time to time urging consumers to buy coal, and to buy it now.
In Toronto we stopped using coal for this season no more than two or three weeks ago. I believe it was not until about the 15th of this month that furnaces generally were closed down. In Toronto we burn coal for about nine and a half months of the year, and it is most perplexing to be advised at short intervals through the press to buy coal-buy coal-buy coal-and to be warned constantly of a coal shortage.
There is no reason under heaven why we should have a coal shortage in Canada, if coal production is thoroughly organized, as I now hope it. may be under this measure. During the past few years all of us have been greatly indebted to two of our civil servants who have been working under the direction of the minister in the handling and controlling
Dominion Coal Board

of coal. I refer to Mr. McGregor Stewart of Nova Scotia and Mr. Frank G. Neate of Ottawa. No matter where one goes in Canada, he hears nothing but praise for Mr. Neate. I hope that when the board is set up it will have on it someone like Mr. Neate, who has a thorough knowledge of the coal problems of this country, and that perhaps he may hold one of the principal positions on the board. I would assume that the minister might have in mind the appointment of a lawyer or a judge to act as chairman, of the board, I suggest that if the deputy chairman does not have to be a lawyer, no better man than Mr. Neate could be secured for the job, because he holds the confidence of the public generally.
I hope that when the new board is set up it will have a new plan altogether for approaching this problem. There is plenty of coal in Canada; the problem is to get it to the consumers. For some time past I have been trying to organize a trip up to the Findlay river, one of the two sources of the Peace river. I would hope to go to Fort Grahame, and from there to the Groundhog coal area, as it has been known for many years.
I have no doubt that the department has reports with respect to that area, and the vast deposits of coal said to be located in that basin. The last report I read stated that it had one of the largest, if not indeed the largest coal deposit in the world. I can scarcely believe there is as much coal in that basin as the report I read would seem to indicate. It is pronounced as A-l coal, and it is said that there is none better anywhere. These reports are issued by the department.
If this is so, there can be no reason for a coal shortage in Canada. The Groundhog coal area is located on the upper waters of the Skeena river, and I doubt if it is more than 150 miles, or perhaps less than that, from the mine to Hazelton on the Canadian National. The river is substantial in size, and perhaps if the mines are immediately adjacent to it, through a certain amount of canalization the coal could be brought down to Hazelton and from there in large quantities of probably fifteen or twenty trains at a time, and taken right down to the central provinces.
The city of Toronto with more than 800,000 people should not be in jeopardy at all times for its coal supply. Most people have expensive furnaces or boilers, and they should not have to be uneasy all the time as to whether their installations will be frozen up. Mr. McLURE: Buy it from Alberta.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe at present most of the Alberta coal is going to the Pacific 
coast, their closest market. However I was one of the first users in Ontario of Alberta coal at the time the Howard Ferguson government brought down the first shipment of 25,000 tons, and I can say Alberta coal is a splendid fuel. It burns away to an ash, and one has little ash to take out. I used to operate boilers for a week at a time without finding it necessary to remove ashes. I would have given a good deal if I could have had Alberta coal available at all times for use in my house; but we could not get it. I buy oil now, at my home. I am going to suggest to the minister that when this board is set up it be suggested to them that they look into the problem of whether coal from the Groundhog area in northern British Columbia can be brought down to Hazelton and then sent by rail in long train load's to the central provinces.
AVhile I am anything but a socialist, there are some matters that can best be handled like we handle the production of hydro electric power in Ontario. I would be in favour of having this done by the board in order that coal from these deposits may be brought to Ontario. But I certainly advise that they bring down large quantities. The city of Toronto should have a year's supply of coal on hand at all times. This may mean the setting up of large coal dumps along the railroads near to and in the city, but the coal should be there. As I said in the beginning, the people should not be harassed to death over getting coal.
After making an exhaustive survey, I advocated, in one of the early speeches that I made in this house, that a national coal policy be organized. I was not the first to do that, because I believe the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) had done it before. But I doubt if any other member had made a survey of the coal mines from Sydney, Nova Scotia to British Columbia more than I have. If this means a national coal policy, I am all for it. Anything that will give surety to the people of Canada that there will be an ample supply of coal should have the support of all of us.
I am not making any comment at the moment about the setting up of the commission, salaries and so forth, because that will come when the bill is in committee. I hope that a long time coal programme will be laid out to envisage the bringing of maritime as well as western coal to central Canada.
I use maritime coal myself in several boilers, and I know the board of education in Toronto have used many thousand tons of it. It could come up by boat, and there is no reason why it should not. It can be sent up in the summer time so that there will be large supplies

Dominion Coal Board
on hand. In that way the miners in Nova Scotia may be given full-time employment, summer and winter. In the winter time they would be producing what would be shipped by water in the summer.
There is an opportunity to set up a national coal policy which will assure several different things, the first being fair treatment of the men. At different times I have heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gilfis) state the conditions under which the miners in Nova Scotia have to w'ork. I believe they must travel several miles from their homes to reach the mines. Speedy transportation should be provided and they should not be crowded into any kind of conveyance.
From my point of view there are not many branches of labour which are more arduous or dangerous than that of coal mining. I think everyone is in favour of these men having, not only fair operating conditions, but proper remuneration, and holidays in which to enjoy the sunlight. They told me when I was in Sydney examining into the coal situation that these men go out three or four miles under the sea. That does not seem just human to me, to expect a man to work without seeing the sunlight and always having his life in jeopardy. No one knows what the bottom of the ocean is like and, while they are under pressure which would prevent a leak, there is always a certain amount of danger. As is stated in the bill, this commission will look into all matters like that.
I hope the commission will organize a programme covering coal mining and the transportation of coal in the speediest way possible from the mines to the consuming public. I know it is a long haul to bring coal to Toronto, say from Hazelton, and it would probably cost $8 to $10 a ton in trainload lots. But we have to have the coal and if our Canadian National Railways is hauling that coal and being paid $8 to $10 a ton for doing so, there will be a smaller deficit to pay at the end of the year. It will be just like taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. If the bill will bring about all that the minister has in mind along these lines, I see no reason to oppose it.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was announced I was very hopeful and I still am of what it would bring forth. I realize that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply >(Mr. Howe) can look ahead and see what may happen. I have one or two questions that I should like to ask. Supposing the board recommended to the minister and to the government that there was a national emergency and that 83166-289
the government should take over the coal industry; what would be the action of the government?
We know that in coal mining as in any other industry there are four interested parties. First, there are the people who put up the money; second, there are those who compose management; third, there are the people who do the work, the workers and fourth, there are the consumers. To me the key people are the contented workers. When I went down into a coal mine I was extremely glad to get out alive and still be clean. I have talked to owners of coal mines and they are agreed that, while coal miners receive good wages, they should receive more than any other type of labour because of the daily risks they run and the impairment to their health.
The minister has proved that he knows how to handle workers, and I am sure he will agree that contented coal miners mean a happy management, and that in turn will be remunerative to those who put up the money.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: The other evening the
minister said something about including oil in the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would come under
section 11, covering emergencies. I shall have an amendment to suggest to the committee when we reach that section.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask if there will
be a deputy chairman? My remarks of a few moments ago will show that I am interested.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is that my hon. friend has no monopoly on his admiration of Mr. Frank Neate. I think very highly of him too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. I might have known it.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Board to recommend policies.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As the minister knows, in the Crowsnest Pass in British Columbia there are mines to which he made favourable reference in his statement on the resolution. They are mines which throughout the war maintained a very good volume of production in tons per man-day. They kept their equip-
REVISED EDITIO:
Dominion Coal Board

ment modernized and have not had to call on the government throughout the whole war for any production subsidies. In every respect their operations compare most favourably with other coal mines in Canada.
When I was in Fernie and Michel recently I was told about the situation that existed there during the depression. The mines produce good steam coal of an industrial type which is not particularly suited for domestic uses, and seventy-five per cent of their production is taken by the two Canadian Railways. By means of freight subventions they have been enabled to sell their coal as far east as Winnipeg and in such parts of northern Ontario as require rail haul from great lakes ports. One important duty of this board will, I trust, be to see that these favourable mining and operating conditions in Fernie have their beneficial effect in bad times as well as in good, and that the history of the last depression will not be repeated in that part of the country. The Crowsnest Pass towns were much more severely affected by the depression than the general experience in Canada. The people there depend entirely for their existence upon the mines, and I believe that during the depression the mines were closed down entirely for a short period. That was not due, as the minister knows, to the management or the workers, but it was because the market for their coal is a narrow one, confined almost entirely to the railways, and the fact that other industrial markets are quite a distance away. The conditions that prevailed in Fernie in the depression must never be allowed to return,, and I trust that the assurance of markets in bad times as well as in good will be one of the important duties of this board.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I have two questions to ask on this section. One has to do with production. The royal commission on coal pointed out the deplorable production methods in some of the mines in eastern Canada. That is why I have said on different occasions that I did not think it was good policy to subsidize inefficiency. This board will have wide powers and will study and recommend to the minister from time to time such policies as they consider necessary. Will the board have power to go into any mine, whether it is privately-owned or not, and investigate its ability to produce coal efficiently and see whether it is using modern machinery to produce at the cheapest possible cost, which, of course, would be reflected in the wages of the workers? Will the board be able to inspect production also from the point of view of safety regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be the duty of the board to investigate production methods in any mine that is assisted by subvention or otherwise, but safety regulations are the duty of the provincial government.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister said, "any mine that is assisted by subsidy or otherwise." Will the board have power to go into a mine that is not subsidized?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The dominion fuel board went in with or without authority, and I assume that this board will as well. Certainly it would be their duty to examine the operation before they recommended any subsidy assistance.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then on the question of distribution, will this board have the power and will it use that power to ascertain the exact cost of transporting coal from one part of Canada to another? Transportation has been one of the great difficulties in getting markets in eastern Canada, particularly for western coal from Alberta. The transportation costs are tremendous. I remember being on one or two committees of this house where we endeavoured to find the actual transportation costs, but it seemed almost impossible to get that information. One company would give you one figure and another company, another. In view of the fact that transportation subsidies will be given, will this board determine what the actual cost is of transporting a ton of coal, say 100 miles, taking into consideration depreciation and other factors such as the cost of maintaining road bed. I do not believe that information is impossible to obtain, because these are factors which a railway must have taken into account before it fixed its passenger rates, or the cost of hauling western wheat, let us say. The railway must keep accounts so that they can accurately estimate the cost of transporting 100 bushels of wheat a certain distance. The royal commission did not go into that question, and I want to know whether this board will ascertain what transportation costs are, so that it will be in a position to recommend the subsidies that should be given. Such an inquiry would be of great assistance to the western coal mines and the mines in eastern Canada too. Will the board do that job?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will cast his eye over the next section he will- see that the board will have power to do all the things to which he has referred.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is in section 7 (e) ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In section 7 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g).

Dominion Coal Board


Charles Edward Johnston: I notice that paragraph (e) deals with the cost of production and distribution, but transportation is not mentioned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Distribution would include transportation. It says:
(e) the costs of production and distribution of coal and the accounting methods adopted or used by persons dealing in coal.
That would, I should think, include railroad rates and costs.


Charles Edward Johnston: What struck me about the distribution of coal-


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: 1, think we had better dispose of section 6 first.


Charles Edward Johnston: Section 6 deals with distribution, Mr. Chairman, but section 7 (e) also deals with distribution, and my one argument will cover both sections. The thing that I am perplexed about is the cost of distribution, and if the board would take into consideration the cost to the railway companies of distributing coal from Alberta to the Ontario market, that would be in a sense considering the question of distribution and its cost. It would not be covering the point I mentioned of going into the exact cost to the railway companies of transporting coal to different points, and I understand that is the reason the subvention is given, to assist the railway in the cost of transportation. That would be the greater task.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Paragraph (e) of section 7
would undoubtedly include railway costs, which are the large item of distribution of western coal. But there is a cover-all provision in paragraph (g) that the board may undertake researches and investigations with respect to "such other matters as the minister may request or as the board may deem necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this act." I can assure my hon. friend that the board will have power to do all the things that he has mentioned.


Charles Edward Johnston: "Such other matters as the minister may request." Will the minister request that the board take this matter into consideration and make an investigation as to the actual cost of transporting a ton of coal 100 miles, or whatever unit of distance might be decided upon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not necessary for the
minister to make a request; the provision goes on to say "or as the board may deem necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this act."


Charles Edward Johnston: But the question arises, will the board deem it necessary? Members of this house for years past, on every committee that has been set up to look intq the matter, have endeavoured to find out the cost of transporting a ton of coal so-many miles in order that we might determine what subvention was necessary. There has-been a contention, not only among members, but throughout the country, that the railways do not need the amount of subvention they get, that the charge for transporting coal is sufficient to cover the actual cost and give the company a decent profit. Unless there is a definite undertaking by the board, and unless the minister directs the board to do this job, I very much fear that they, like the royal commission, will push this aside and- I use the word advisedly-we may be paying a subvention on an item that is not necessary, so that the government will be losing money in that regard and the people in western Canada and in the maritimes as well will be losing a definite market for their coal.
I now come to the use of coal in Canada. As I said the other day when we were speaking on this question, one of the greatest concerns in Canada at the present time, so far as I can see-and my mind tends naturally toward Alberta, which is a coal-producing area and I live there, though I want to take in the rest of Canada as well-is the necessity for a national fuel policy. Ever since I have been in this house I have tried to emphasize that point, as other members have done as well. We have no monopoly in that regard, but certainly we have emphasized the need of such a policy. In the case of a national emergency such as arose in the last war, I do not think we should be dependent upon other countries for our coal. If we ever get into the situation we were in during the war- and that may easily be-where we have to depend on outside coal for the maintenance of our essential production, it will be a sorry State of affairs for Canada. Coal mining is something that cannot be increased overnight. It does not seem logical to me that a country as rich in coal as Canada is, and with our transportation facilities such as they are, should not be able to transport coal from one end of the dominion to the other on such a basis that it will be sufficient to maintain the productive capacity of our industries. It may be necessary, as I pointed out the other day, that we have a revision of the placement of industries in Canada. I said on more than one occasion during the war that I thought it was the most natural thing for us to establish some of the heavier industries in western Canada where the coal
Dominion Coal Board

supply is at hand and where a share of the raw material for heavier industries is also available within a comparatively few miles, 400 or 500 miles, which does not present a long transportation problem. Labour is such that it can be transported from one province to another with extreme ease. I suggest to the minister, therefore, and to the commission, that if they can find no solution to the transportation problem, so far as coal is concerned, then they should seriously consider the allocation of heavier industries in areas where the coal is situated.


Angus MacInnis: How can the recommendations of the commission be enforced? What machinery is provided in this act for their enforcement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This commission is not a regulatory body in normal times. It is a body to advise the minister on ways and means for the carrying out of the coal policy of the government. In times of emergency it has definite regulatory powers, and an emergency can be proclaimed, whenever the government decides that the situation is getting out of hand.


Angus MacInnis: I understand that this board is to operate in normal times. I do not think it will be feasible to call an emergency situation every time there happens to be a shortage of coal somewhere in Canada. I suggest, therefore, that before the government can formulate and carry out a coal policy which will assure the people of Canada a supply of coal that will be adequate in normal times, the government must have some means of compelling those who produce the coal to carry out the recommendations made by the commission. For instance, there is a scarcity of coal and the board makes certain recommendations to certain coal companies. If the board simiply makes recommendations and the coal companies say, "So what", that does not produce coal. I am wondering what the policy will be for assuring that the recommendations are carried out. I can understand that where a coal mining company is receiving aid from the government the withdrawal of the aid would operate so that the recommendations were carried out, but if the coal company does not see eye;-to-eye with the commission-and remember that the coal company is, after all, operating, not for the welfare of Canada, but for the profit of the shareholders-there is nothing in this act thalt confers any power on the government to assure that the people of , Canada will get the coal which is in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The dominion fuel board has been operating for twenty-five years with powers not as extensive as those being granted under this act. In that period, to my know-

ledge it has moved cars of coal from one area to another and from one source to another market and I believe I can say thait there has been no resistance on the part of the owners of the coal to accepting orders from the dominion fuel board. Having had that experience of twenty-five years, I thing it would not be wise for parliament at this time to pass restrictive orders which will probably not be needed. Parliament meets every year; and if we find that additional powers are needed, I presume those powers can be provided.


Angus MacInnis: The minister said the coal board had been operating for twenty-five years. But has not the coal situation in Canada been pretty much of a mess for twenty-five years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, everybody has been warm.


Angus MacInnis: If that is all we have to look forward to under this board, it is not too hopeful.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Powers of the board.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This afternoon I made a mistake under another bill, when I started to make comments on section 7. At that time I was referring to section 7 of this bill. I did get mixed up. Section 7 embraces a great deal to which the people generally, particularly the consumers, can look with a good deal of hope. For instance, paragraph (a) refers to systems and methods of mining coal. I hope this board will at least have the power to make an investigation itself into the cheapest systems of mining coal and to transmit its findings to the various coal operators. I would not want to think this new board would not be going any farther than the last board went, especially after having listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who is a practical coal man. His observations usually were that in the production of coal in the Nova Scotia mines the machinery and equipment were wholly out of date. If this new board finds that is the case, I would hope it would come forward with some kind of programme to assist in and recommend a faster production of coal in the Nova Scotia mines, or in any other coal mines for that matter; for instance, the mines in the riding of the hon. member for Royal. Last summer I went to one of his towns, namely, Minto, and was amazed to find that they were mining coal in places where the seam was between twenty and thirty inches wide. How a miner can work in that space, I can-

not conceive. Perhaps the board would help to devise some kind of system which would be more effective down there.
Paragraph (c) refers to the development of new uses for coal. If the St. Lawrence canal goes forward, as I hope it will within a reasonable length of time, whatever that length of time is, the development of hydro electric power on the international section, as far as Canada is concerned, will amount to the equivalent of 36,000,000 tons of coal a year; and it will be everlasting. It will be waterpower electricity. Once the St. Lawrence power canal or navigation canal is in operation, it will mean that somebody will have to assist in finding new markets for coal; because if electricity is produced to the equivalent of 36,000,000 tons of coal a year, that is a great deal of coal for which an alternate market will need to be found. The board could do a good service there by-and-by.
Paragraph (e) refers to costs of production and distribution of coal, accounting methods adopted and so on. Right alongside the Peace river west of Hudson Hope-perhaps the minister has been there; I have anyway -is a vast deposit of good coal. During the war I believe his department bought from Gething coal mines the coal that was used all along the Alaska highway. I know that coal mine is right beside the river; the river is down about 250 feet below it. The coal can be shot through chutes from the mines right down to the river. It would go pretty fast down that distance. It can be shot into 500-ton barges. Barges not as large as that but of good size were constructed during the war at Peace River. Peace River barges could be used to take coal down to the town of Peace River on the railway. There would be a vast body of coal for distribution through all northern Alberta south of the Peace river right down as far as Edmonton. I have no doubt that the new board will use its best efforts to bring about the marketing of coal in the various areas in the speediest way possible and, by so doing, cut down the price of coal. The more coal is shipped down, the lower the price.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I am interested in this bill because I have some coal mines in my constituency. I do not consider that the minister was really stating the case correctly when he said that all the people were warm enough in Canada, even though we have had a coal board for the last twenty-five years. Our whole policy in regard to coal should have an overhauling. I notice in section 7 that the terms of reference of the board in regard to research and investigation are quite comprehensive. When the minister
Dominion Coal Board
answers what I have to say, I should1 like him to indicate just what the government would do on the recommendations of such a board.
In my constituency we have had deplorable conditions in the past in the Bienfait mines. Today they are somewhat better, I will admit. But in 1931 when we had the strike there, the redcoats were called in-that is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-to try to do something about it. We saw the situation of the miners with their low pay and intolerable conditions of work in the mine. When they tried to organize, it did not seem that a solution could be found. That in itself indicated that something should be done.
When we go back to the maritime coal strike which has been going on in the past few weeks, it also indicates that we should have a general overhaul of the coal policy of this country. I should like the minister to indicate, as an example, the policy on what is termed the Kapitu method for the utilization of low grade fuel like we have in my area. We have lignite coal there, which might be used by using the Kapitu method of burning coal underground for the production of power. Would the government undertake, on the recommendation of such a coal board, such policies as they might recommend?
When I was at the Bienfait coal mine about three years ago I found conditions which were intolerable. Prior to the war they were even worse. At that time, when there was a large number of unemployed, the company had stooges among the workers; and if for a moment any workers indicated dissatisfaction with conditions they were quickly let out.
Not only should the people of Canada have an adequate supply of fuel; I believe that we should also protect our workers and that those undertaking the production of coal should be under federal authority. I went into another mine at Estevan. Notwithstanding the fact that certain regulations were on the statute books which, if carried out, would be very good in the way of protecting workers, just prior to my visit a man at the top of the tipple let a couple of coal cars get away from him and roll back down the mine. No one was hurt, simply because no men were coming off work at the time. The regulations require a second entrance for the workers in a mine. In this case there was only the one entrance, and the workers were required to go in and come out of the entrance used for the coal itself. I believe we should have more definite supervision of these mines in order to protect our workers. I do not believe we shall reach a satisfactory solution of our coal problem until we have nationalization of coal.
Dominion Coal Board

In the past we have seen times when our fuel supplies have been low, when people have had to go without. Only a national policy which will take into consideration the need of coal for both industrial and fuel purposes, and under which the government will take responsibility for getting out that coal so that it may be sold to the people at a decent price, will bring about a decent solution of the coal problem of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that wages and working conditions in mines, as well as their inspection in connection with safety, are functions of the provinces. I am sorry to see my hon. friend is losing confidence in the government of Saskatchewan.


Edward George McCullough: When I was at these mines the Liberal government was in'power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But I notice that the hon. gentleman is making his remarks today, after the present government has been in for several years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Duties of the board.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: These subventions and subsidies are, of course, the very meat of the functions of the board. As I understand it, subventions were first given in order that the coal of Nova Scotia could compete with coal coming from the United States. I want to ask the minister whether subventions are given for the movement of coal within individual provinces. I believe such subventions have been granted in some of the western provinces; but, as far as my own province is concerned, no assistance has been given to the movement of coal within that province, which has made it very difficult for us to compete with coal coming from Nova Scotia. I might point out that a subsidy amounting to $1.67 a ton is paid to the Dominion Coal Company. I understand that they also receive a subvention or assistance in connection with freight rates amounting to $3.47 a ton, making a total of $5.14 a ton given Nova Scotia coal by way of assistance. That was paid on the coal moved into New Brunswick. Coal produced in New Brunswick received a subsidy of only $1, so that there was a difference of $4.14. This matter was continually brought to the attention of Mr. Brunning, who was head of the board during the war, but nothing was done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the coal found a market, did it not?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, all the coal found a market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then your complaint is that the operators did not make enough money?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My complaint is that the operators of New Brunswick are carrying on at a loss, whereas coal coming from Nova Scotia received this large amount of help. I am not objecting to Nova Scotia getting this help, but I say assistance should be given New Brunswick for the movement of coal within that province. I believe it is shown in the report of the Carroll commission that assistance was given to British Columbia, for example, in connection with the movement of coal from the mines to certain sections of that province. I make a special plea for the coal mines in New Brunswick, because that is my own province. I am interested in general in the production of coal throughout the dominion, but I know the operators of my province have suffered during the last number of years because of the policies of this government, and they received very little sympathy from Mr. E. J. Brunning, who was administering our coal operations during the war. That is one reason why I have particularly asked the minister, when this board of seven men is set up, to see that consideration is given to appointing a man from New Brunswick. Our coal area is small, and in the past I have understood that for this reason no sympathy has been given, or at least not as much sympathy as should have been given. We were simply brushed aside and told, "You have only two per cent of the coal, so it does not make very much difference." That is why I am calling this matter to the attention of the minister. I do not say the minister himself has been unsympathetic, but he has been a very busy man. These matters have been looked after by other people, and New Brunswick has not received the attention to which it is entitled. They have almost ruined the coal industry in that province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a very serious charge. The earnings of every coal operator in New Brunswick are a matter of record with the emergency coal production board. I can give my hon. friend the list of operators and the profits they made, if he wishes. But I can testify to this, that during the period of the emergency coal production board no operator in New Brunswick went bankrupt.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not saying that. Is it necessary for a man to go bankrupt before the government will step in and give the assistance that is being given other people? I did not say these men went bankrupt; I said the industry as a whole lost money. Not only

Dominion Coal Board
that, but these men came to Ottawa at different times and made representations, and they received scant consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a serious thing for a member to stand up in the House of Commons and say the industry in New Brunswick lost money during the war. On what does he base that statement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On the facts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to produce the profit and loss statements of all the coal operators of New Brunswick if my hon. friend wants to carry his charge before a committee of the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I will carry my charge before any committee; and I can take the Carroll report and show where these men lost money. If the minister has read this report through he must have seen that. I am not saying they all lost money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said the industry lost money.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I said the industry in general lost money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all very well for a member to stand up in the house and abuse a board that carried heavy responsibilities during the war, mentioning the chairman by name and saying he was unfair and discriminatory. I think a little careful consideration is required before an hon. member takes action in that manner.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the minister very much for telling me what I should and should not do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would expect you to know.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have heard the chairmen of boards criticized in this house, and I offer no apology for criticizing the chairman of this board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very poor taste.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have had representations from the miners of my province and my constituency, and they have not been at all backward about criticizing the chairman of this board. I have not the least doubt they have criticized him to the minister as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and. 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Regulating and controlling production, distribution and use of coal.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I pointed out, in introducing the resolution, that it seemed to me that parliament should' consider an extension of the
emergency powers. We are taking that emergency power in respect of coal, for the reason that the coal situation is not within the jurisdiction of Canada by itself. A large proportion of the coal Canada uses must be imported from outside this country.
The same applies to fuel oil. Therefore I suggest an amendment to the section which would give the government the same emergency powers in the matter of fuel oil that it is taking in the matter of coal. In other words, if a situation should arise where suffering would result because of Canada's not obtaining sufficient fuel oil, or because of an improper distribution of fuel oil, emergency powers could be invoked under the bill as they can be in respect of coal. Therefore I would ask my colleague to move an amendment on this point.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move:
That section ,H be amended by-
(a) changing the word "coal" wherever it appears in section il'l to the word "fuel," and
([b) adding as sub-section (7) the following:
(7) "Fuel" includes coal, light and heavy fuel oil including bunker "C" fuel oil, kerosene, range oil, gas oil. diesel oil and any other hydrocarbon fuel used for the same purposes as the above-designated grades.


Mr. REID:: Would the minister explain how that changes the bill? I am thinking particularly of British Columbia where much of our fuel is wood and. sawdust. I suggest that some care should be given before the government takes in all fuels from one end of Canada to the other. I have no doubt that the minister was thinking particularly of oil; but when he uses the word "fuel" he brings in wood. And I am. not so sure; that wood and sawdust should be brought in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no intention to apply the emergency provision to wood. The only intention is to include coal and liquid fuel oil.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Is natural gas included in the list of hydro-carbons?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is not.


Mr. SHAW:: It will be noted that section 11
(1)	states:
Where the governor in council is of opinion that by reason of conditions or events within or outside of Canada there is or is likely to be a shortage of coal in Canada of such dimensions or nature as to imperil the welfare or national life of Canada . . .
Action may be taken to conserve the available supply of coal and to regulate and control its production, distribution and use. In my opinion there are two types of emergency which may face our coal industry. As one
Dominion Coal Board

who represents a constituency in which a considerable amount of Coal mining is conducted, I feel concerned about the second type, and that is a condition which may develop under which we find our miners are out of employment and our mines are permitted to close down or to slow down production, actions which in themselves may result in a condition which this bill is designed to meet, should such condition arise.
I should like to see the board given authority to give just as much consideration to a national emergency of the kind to which I have referred as to an emergency where an actual shortage of coal production occurs. Under this bill, should stagnation within the industry develop, I suggest that the board should then proceed to take whatever action is necessary to maintain the industry in a sound and flourishing position. Would the minister indicate whether, as part of its work, the board may give attention to that aspect of a national emergency?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The sole purpose of the bill is to set up a board which will keep the coal industry in a healthy condition. It is the duty of the commissioners to carry out that mandate. The emergency arises when a situation develops which the commission, under its ordinary duties and authorities, cannot handle, a situation which imperils the welfare of the nation. I think my hon. friend would hardly look to the emergency section to take care of the problem he mentions.
Mr. S'HAW: It has always been my opinion that it is far better to head off an emergency by taking appropriate action than to try to meet it once it has come. Once again I urge that, in turn, the board be urged to do everything possible Iby every conceivable type of action to try to prevent our rushing headlong into an acute emergency involving a coal shortage.


Edward George McCullough: I was about to speak along the same lines as the hon. member for Red Deer. Would the minister indicate whether or not we are now facing a real shortage of fuel oil, and that next winter we shall be finding ourselves short of it. People who have been contemplating the installation of oil furnaces are now told not to instal them. Then, the authority of the board should be wide enough to see to it that all possible coal is mined between now and next fall to produce every bit of coal we can. Would the minister indicate that, provided that a coal strike should come, or that some mines should shut down for
one reason or another, the board would have authority to open those mines to see that coal is produced?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be the duty of the board to make sure there is sufficient fuel in the country to protect the life of the country. The fact that a man would like to put in an oil burner and cannot be guaranteed a supply of fuel oil for that purpose scarcely constitutes a national emergency. But if there were any section of the country which did not have fuel of any kind, that might be a national emergency. The board would act in the matter of liquid fuel only if a situation of that kind developed; that is, if the lack of oil fuel became so serious that the national interests were prejudiced.


Charles Edward Johnston: Section 11 states that the governor in council may be of the opinion that a shortage of fuel exists, and that it may declare a national emergency. The governor in council would be a comparatively small number of men. How could they override the rights of the provinces; because it is the provinces which have the control of their own natural resources?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wording of the bill was taken from the latest ruling of the privy council in England, when consideration was had as to what constitutes a national emergency which enables the federal government to take over jurisdiction. The hon. member is right when he states that the operation of coal mines is a provincial matter, unless a situation arises which is described under this bill as an emergency. In such circumstances the privy council has ruled that the right to act passes to the federal government.
Mr. JOHlNSTON: Would; it not be better to have it the governor in council in consultation with the provinces? It seems to me that that would be a more amicable arrangement than to just have the governor in council declare an emergency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose it would use common sense. This idea of consulting with the provinces is not unheard of, as I think my hon. friend will admit. The wording is this:
Where the governor in council is of opinion that by reason of conditions or events within or outside of Canada there is or is likely to be a shortage of coal in Canada of such dimensions or nature as to imperil the welfare or national life of Canada as a whole ....
That is a pretty serious situation and, when that happens, the federal government takes such action as it considers adequate. It does not need much advice as to what it does.

Dominion Coal Board


Edward George McCullough: I am not just clear as to what .the minister means. I take it he has indicated that the purpose of his amendment was to bring fuel oil under the jurisdiction of this board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Edward George McCullough: There may be in his mind or in the mind of the government the contemplation that an emergency exists. Press reports indicate that there is a fuel oil shortage, and I should like the minister to indicate whether or not that is to be declared an emergency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To give my own opinion, the situation today in Canada, as far as fuel oil is concerned, does not come within the competence of this section. There is not likely to be a shortage of fuel oil in Canada of such dimensions or nature as to imperil the welfare or national life of Canada as a whole. My hon. friend does not think so either.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Payment of expenses.
Douglas Scott Harkness: While we were in the resolution stage, I asked the minister to tell us what would be the extra cost of setting up this board over and1 above the cost of the government supervision of the coal industry as it has been exercised in the past.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only reason the board would cost more is that we expect a little more from it than we got from the dominion fuel board; its terms of reference are much wider. If my hon. friend wants to keep it within the proportions of the dominion fuel board, I suppose that can be done, and in that circumstance I presume it would not do much more than the dominion fuel board. But if this board is to carry on investigations, it will have to spend a little more money, and I presume my hon. friend would be quite willing to leave the amount to the government to determine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say anything about what I wanted to do in connection with keeping within the powers of the dominion fuel board. I asked a straight question as to what the added expense of this board would be and I should like a straight answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It all depends upon what the board undertakes. The cost in the past of the dominion fuel board was about $35,000 a year. My hon. friend will appreciate that an expenditure of $35,000 would not go very far 83166-290
in carrying out investigations and a number of the other duties which are set out for this board. I presume the new board will spend the amount required to enable it to carry out its much greater responsibilities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I still have not had an answer and I object to the minister going around like this and trying to throw me off the track. From the time that I first heard of building up this board-I say "building up" advisedly-I had the idea that essentially it would carry on some of the functions which have been carried on by people in various departments of the government and by the fuel board but that would cost a great deal of money. I thought it was just another board with a lot of high-priced help which was not under the civil service as far as I could see.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Read the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has been listening to gossip. If he will read the bill he will see that everything he has said is not according to the facts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think everything I have said is according to the facts. I should still like to know how much more this will cost, or an estimate. I want some sort of answer, and all I have had so far is evasion of my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I want an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did my hon. friend happen to read the report of the royal commission on coal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I read it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That report sets out the duties of the board. My hon. friend will have noticed that they are considerably more extensive than those of the dominion fuel board. Will my hon. friend go that far?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the board is to carry out its more extensive duties, it will spend more money than the dominion fuel board. Will my hon. friend go that far?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked how much more, approximately?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I find myself unable to follow my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: That is a perfectly straight question. The hon. member has asked the estimated increase in cost, and surely the
minister can give us that.

Forest Conservation


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the first opportunity the government will come to parliament and ask for a certain amount, and that will be the amount we estimate the board will spend over a period.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say now what it is estimated it will cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to approve a certain agreement between the dominion of Canada and the government of Alberta respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums required for capital expenditures, payments to the province of moneys for formulated programmes carried out by the province, salaries of officers and employees appointed under the act and expenses incidental to the operation of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill proposes to ratify an agreement which has been, entered into between the government of the province of Alberta and His Majesty the King, represented by the Department of Mines and Resources, to provide for certain expenditures in protecting the east slope of the Rocky mountains. Hon. members are aware that the east slope of the Rocky mountains is the locality of the head waters of two great rivers of Canada, the Saskatchewan and the Athabaska. Both the North Saskatchewan and the South Saskatchewan rivers and their tributaries are dependent largely upon the run-off from the east slope of the Rocky mountains for the maintenance of water levels throughout the year.
The east slope of the Rocky mountains was transferred to the province of Alberta with the transfer of natural resources. The interests involved in protecting, the east slope of the Rockies are not confined to one province. The work is of equal importance to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and. Alberta. The government of Alberta have made representations to the federal government that that province is unable to finance the expenditures required to carry out the protection that all interested parties agree is required. The agreement provides that certain federal assistance will be given in carrying out a five-year programme for the purpose of clearing up a situation on the east slope that is harmful to the water resources of that area. Thus the agreement makes provision for a division of the responsibility between the federal government and the government of Alberta.
May I suggest that extensive discussion of this measure might, be reserved until the bill and the agreement are before us. The bill itself is very simple. The agreement is more complicated, and we can discuss both intelligently when we have the bill and the agreement before us.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I personally take a certain amount of humble satisfaction out of this resolution because, as the minister knows, for some years, after much travel on the east slope of the Rockies, I have been advocating just such a bill. The time has long, since passed when the federal government should come forward and assist the Alberta government to protect the east slope of the Rocky mountains so far as financing goes, because this is not purely an Alberta question. The reclamation and maintenance of the forests on the east slope of the Rocky mountains affect the whole watershed, particularly of the Saskatchewan river, not so much of the Athabaska river because the latter river flows off to the northeast, but the maintenance of the forests on the east slope of the Rocky mountains does affect the watershed of the Saskatchewan river very much, both north and south, particularly west of the Alberta, border. That comprises 125,000 square miles, which is a large area. West of the Alberta border the watershed of the North Saskatchewan is about
50,000	square miles, and the watershed of the South Saskatchewan is about 66,000 square miles. For years past those forests have been badly denuded and destroyed, principally by fire. I calculated a few days ago from data that, I have, and which of course, the government has, that I would be putting it midly if I said that an average of 20,000 acres have been destroyed by fire each year on the eastern slope. At the head waters of the Brazeau and of the Red Deer and of the branches of the South Saskatchewan, it is sad to see whole areas on which the forests have been destroyed by fire. So that the government is to be commended on this agreement with the province of Alberta to prevent forest fires by

Forest Conservation
the regular means by which such fires are prevented.
I hope that when the minister again speaks he will tell us what the programme of protection is. If it is stated in the bill he does not need to take time to tell us now. There should be a long-range programme covering the number of acres or square miles that are to be protected and replanted each year and the methods by which the water is to be piped through the foothills and the eastern slope for the protection of the forests.
I found when I was in conference last October with the officials of the United States bureau of reclamation in Denver, Colorado, that they have a substantial programme for forest protection and the prevention of fires on the east slope of their Rocky mountains. They count it as an important part of their programme of reclamation, and so it is, because in that area, principally in the centre of their east slopes, the river basin is much like our own Saskatchewan river basin. So much depends upon the preservation of the forests, not only water for agriculture which will be required when our departments bring to completion the proposed reclamation of the dried-out areas through irrigation, but water for domestic purposes in the cities and towns that we hope to see grow on the banks of the Saskatchewan river when that whole area is reclaimed; also it is important for power production and for the conservation of wild life. The United States bureau of reclamation in Denver attach a lot of value to their wild life. They have many pictures illustrating the disasters which have overtaken their forest animals through fire, and I have no doubt that on our eastern slope of the Rocky mountains fire has caused great destruction to our wild life.
So it is an important programme. I have a recollection that the Minister of Mines and Resources either stated in the house or told me personally that the amount to be contributed to the Alberta government runs into three or four millions-[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is $6,000,000 over a five-year period.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. LOW:: I think the suggestion made
by the minister, that the debate take place on the second reading of the bill, is a good one. We are prepared to make a joint statement with the minister when the motion for second reading is moved, and 1 think it would best serve the interests of everyone if we said no more at this stage.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 362, respecting the protection and conservation of -the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

United Nations



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 132, respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Powers of governor in council.
Gordon Graydon: Before this section carries, I should like to point out to the committee that this and the other clauses in the bill were referred after second reading to the standing committee on external affairs. While there, this clause received careful scrutiny by members, with the result that in the subsequent clause one finds the single amendment which the committee finally approved and submitted by way of recommendation to the committee of the whole house.
On this particular clause, without attempting to make any further observations, since I think we have already discussed practically all the matters of prime importance touching the principle of the bill, and perhaps its details as well, I wonder if the minister is in a position to tell us whether or not there are any countries other than those which he mentioned in his original speech on the second reading, which have since completed their procedure along lines similar to those we are now following. In other words, what other countries have delegated their authority from their legislature to their executive as is proposed in this bill?
Another question I would raise at the moment is the one that arises from the discussions which took place in the committee itself. It seems that- there are two different ways by which the executive may be clothed with authority by the legislative branch in a matter such as this. In the earlier days, under the old league of nations, the clothing of the executive with powers from the legislative body came, I understand, through a blanket statute or authority passed at the time when the league covenants were before the house. An entirely different procedure is envisaged in this legislation, and perhaps will be envisaged in others, namely, that piece by piece, apparently, the government intends to ask for the clothing of that authority by the legislative body; and one of the external affairs officials indicated that he thought that was a

sensible way of handling the matter. But the minister was not there, and for that reason we were not able to receive definite answers as to policy, which only the minister at this stage of the proceedings can properly give us.
I would be glad if he would comment on the reasons. I am not raising any criticisms with respect to them, but I think we should have some clarification, because in the days that lie ahead we may be asked to deal with other bills arising out of our commitments and obligations under the united nations charter, and the position should be made clear to the committee at this time. Perhaps the minister will give us some explanation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to the first question, as to what other countries have clothed the executive branch of their sovereignty with powers required to carry out the directives that may be made by the security council, the former inquiry had to do with the British commonwealth countries, and I mentioned some.- I am not sure whether I mentioned at that time the action that had been taken by the legislative assembly at New Delhi. We did get information that there had been introduced and passed by the legislative assembly at New Delhi a bill much in the form of this and of the legislation adopted by other British commonwealth units, empowering the governor to make orders, which would become effective upon publication in their official gazette, to carry out such directives as might properly be made by the security council under article 41 of the charter.


Gordon Graydon: Australia and South
Africa-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Australia has not so far proceeded to do so.


Gordon Graydon: Nor South Africa?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. Those who have done so are United Kingdom, New Zealand, India; and it is being proposed that Canada do so as well.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister know of any special reason for the delay in the other units of the commonwealth he has mentioned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I do not think the question has been looked upon as urgent in view of the fact that the security council has not yet put itself in a position where it would be able immediately to make directions under this article 41 of the charter, even if any such should be considered as desirable.
To answer the second question, the covenant of the league of nations was ratified by

United Nations
Canada in the form of a statute. Legislation was passed which made the covenant a part of the law of Canada and empowered the governor in council to take such action as might be required in order to comply with the obligations undertaken by accepting the covenant. Hon. members will recall that the form of the ratification of the charter of the united nations which was suggested and passed, was resolutions of both houses of parliament requesting His Majesty to ratify in the name of Canada. That did not constitute legislation. The real reason for coming from time to time only with such things as the government is prepared to recommend to parliament is the anxiety which was expressed many times in this house over the giving of blanket authority to the executive branch of the state. There are occasions when it may be necessary, in the interests of the security of the state, to get blanket authority; but this did not appear to be a case where it could be seriously stated that there would be apt to be danger to the security of the state without blanket authority. Under those conditions it was felt that it would be complying better with the temper of this house to ask only for the things which appeared to be necessary and not to take for the executive branch any greater powers than the House of Commons would feel it was reasonable to grant.


Gordon Graydon: I think the government will keep out of trouble better that way than by following some other suggestions.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was felt that in that way the immediate interests of the country would be safeguarded and we would not be asking the House of Commons to commit itself to anything which is not foreseen at this time. Therefore it was felt that it would be better, even at the risk of having to come back more than once, to have a real case every time some transfer of authority from parliament to the executive branch of the government was being sought. [DOT]


Gordon Graydon: The government is reducing the denomination of the blank cheque.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister tell the committee whether or not any nations outside the British commonwealth have passed legislation similar to this? Can he give us the names of any nations which have done so?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I cannot give the names of any nations outside the commonwealth which have passed legislation similar to this. I know that legislation is not required under the constitution of the United States.
When the charter of the united nations was ratified in accordance with the procedure required by their constitution, by virtue of the constitution it became the law of the land. There are many other countries which have constitutional provisions whereby any treaty legally ratified by their government becomes the law of the land. Under the British system, parliament remains supreme and there must be some legislative action by parliament to make it the duty of a British citizen to do something which can be required of him because of a commitment in an international treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Penalty for violation.
Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will want to go through the usual procedure with respect to the amendment to this particular section. Is it section 3 or 4?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 4 is the one which is amended.


Gordon Graydon: Then it is section 4 that I wanted to speak to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Tabling in parliament.
Gordon Graydon: I think the minister will want to make a change in that section, because an amendment there was recommended by the committee on external affairs. Otherwise it is all right.


William Ross Macdonald: The bill as presented to the committee shows an amendment which was made by the committee of external affairs. In the second line of section 2 the words "within fifteen days" are struck out and the word "forthwith" is inserted in their place; and in the fourth line the words "within fifteen days" are struck out and the word "forthwith" is inserted in their place.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. The recommendation of the committee on external affairs is accepted by the government. I would ask my colleague to move that the words "within fifteen days" in line two and "within fifteen days" in line 4-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The amendment is now before the committee. The bill has come to the committee of the whole as amended.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: So no motion is necessary?


William Ross Macdonald: No.
United Nations


John Bracken: The committee on external affairs cannot amend the bill. The committee may recommend an amendment, but the house must accept it. I suggest, in all deference, that a motion is in order for a change to be made.


William Ross Macdonald: May I point out that this bill received second reading, after which it was referred to the committee on external affairs. That committee considered the bill and made this amendment. The bill has now come to this committee of the whole as amended by the committee on external affairs. If this committee desires to amend the bill further, it has the power to do so.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is not this the position, Mr. Chairman? As a result of its deliberations, the committee made a report to the house, and that report recommended the substitution of the word "forthwith" for the words "within fifteen days." I am not sure if the recommendation is sufficient to enable us to pass the bill with that change. I rather agree with the leader of the opposition that it would require an amendment by the house, but I am not sure about that procedure.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Sometimes the government has not accepted the recommendations of a committee.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. This is not a new procedure. On other occasions the committee as a whole has considered bills which have been amended in committee. If hon. members will look at the order paper they will find under order No. 5:
June 10-House in committee of the whole on Bill No. 132 (Letter F of the senate) intituled: "An Act respecting article forty-one of the charter of the united nations" (as amended).
The bill is now before this committee as amended.


Major James William Coldwell: By concurrence of the house in the report of the committee?


William Ross Macdonald: The bill has not as yet been reported.


Major James William Coldwell: I mean the report of the committee on external affairs, which made this recommendation, and the report of which was concurred in. I presume that is how the amendment was made. I am not certain whether we are sure of this procedure; I am a bit foggy about it.


William Ross Macdonald: The committee on
external affairs reported the bill with amendments. Then it was placed on the order paper, where it is indicated as having been amended. It is now before the committee
with those amendments. This committee can either accept the amendments, and, if they do, no motion to amend is necessary, or if the committee do not want to accept the amendments they can further amend the bill by striking them out and putting it back in its original form, or by making other amendments which would be in order.


John Bracken: The point I raised was wholly technical and should not require any of the time of this house to determine. It seems to me that the procedure suggested by the Chairman is going at it wrong end to. This house should not be asked to undo something a committee has done. The house should be asked to approve something the committee has done; and if the minister or some member of the government would move that the recommendation of the committee be carried out there is no question but that the procedure would be proper. In all deference, I suggest that the other procedure is wrong.


William Ross Macdonald: I point out to the leader of the opposition that, by accepting section 4 as amended, the committee is approving the amendment made by the committee on external affairs.


Angus MacInnis: The position of this bill is no different from that of any other bill which is referred to a committee. It comes back to the house with the various amendments, andi it is not then necessary for the minister to have someone move those amende ments, as it would' be if the bill had not gone to a committee, and as it would be if they desired to make additional amendments. If any further amendments are to be made now the minister will have to adopt the procedure he suggested in the first place.


William Ross Macdonald: If the amendment is satisfactory to the committee the adoption of this section would be tantamount to an acceptance of the amendment made by the committee.


John Bracken: It is not worth while taking any more time of the committee, but I think we should' get the procedure clear. A few days ago this house was presented with a bill. That bill was referred to a committee for consideration. That committee suggested certain changes, and those suggestions come to this house for approval.


Angus MacInnis: They are before the house now.


John Bracken: They are not before the house. They would be if somebody moved
[The Chairman.]

Exchequer Court Act
that the amendments recommended be accepted. We have a printed bill, but my point is that officially these amendments are not before us. They would be if the minister moved them; but I do not want to take any more time on a purely technical point.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Probably we can cover whatever divergency of view there may be about the proper procedure. I will move that section 4 as amended by the committee on external affairs be accepted by this committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have third reading deferred until the next sitting.


James Horace King: Has the minister leave of the house to move third reading?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; there is an objection. Next sitting.



IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS


[Stage Direction]
Right. Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No.
259,	to amend the Identification of Criminals Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No.
260,	to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time,
considered in. committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 262, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Salary of associate chief justice.
Mr. HACKETT:: As I understand it, the only change is in the name?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Yes, the name is changed by Quebec legislation: This bill is passed to comply with the Quebec legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Salaries of judges of Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Mr. FULTON:: In view of the amendment to the Judges Act made last year with respect to pensions, and so on, will any change be necessary because of the addition of one judge to the Supreme Court of British Columbia; or is that taken care of?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No further amendment is required. The amendment made last year applies to the additional judge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill 263, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, on division, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Registrar of exchequer court.
John Thomas Hackett: I asked when the resolution was under discussion if the minister could state the salary of the present incumbent. I do not know whether he said he would have the information available at this time. If so, I should like to have it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The salary is $5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 2-Coming into force.
Mr. KNOWLES:: What is the reason for this section, which has the effect of making the provision retroactive? Does it mean that the increase has already been made?
Juvenile Delinquents Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: The increase has not been made. It was thought it should be applicable to the present fiscal year.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the right kind of legislation. When there are increases in salaries they should be made by legislation rather than by order in council. I congratulate the minister on the bill; I do not see how any hon. member could oppose it. This is progress. We are all subject to control by parliament, and this is control by parliament. It is the right way of doing it, and my hon. friends know that. They knew it before I spoke, but they did not think of it. I am reminding them. I hope this procedure will be followed in the future. If it is not, perhaps there will be some trouble. But when it is followed it is a good sign.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I understand that the provision is being made retroactive to April 1?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, of this year.


George Hugh Castleden: But the amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act are not being made retroactive.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To May 1.


George Hugh Castleden: But not to April 1.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; there were certain
reasons why they could not be. My hon. friend is making a point which he may make use of somewhere. But I do not think it is an important point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the argument is put forward that this should be applicable for the fiscal year, then I suggest that it should apply in other matters. The principle is the same.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member could offer an amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I move:
That the word "April" in line il6 of the hill he deleted and the word "July" he inserted in place thereof.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 267, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

On section 1-Appeals by special leave.
Mr. JAENICKE:: What is meant here when reference is made to a supreme court judge? Is it the Supreme Court of Canada or a provincial court? I ask the question because there is provision in the last sentence for appeal to a supreme court judge instead of to the court of appeal, with a further right of appeal to the court of appeal by special leave of that court. Is that the Supreme Court of Canada? Is there an appeal from a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to a provincial appeal court?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the supreme court of the province, I feel sure. I can send for the act, but I feel sure it is the supreme court of the province. I believe it would be clear if the act were consulted.


John Thomas Hackett: That being so, it is possible the bill might have to be worded differently, because in Quebec the court which would exercise jurisdiction would probably be the court of king's bench. Unfortunately I have not the statute before me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I can say is that the
point has not arisen so far as I know. This is not a new section; this is the wording of the existing act, and I am not aware that that wording has caused any trouble. I am not able to answer specifically the point that has been raised. The only change in the section is the addition of three words, "or a magistrate." Perhaps we would be safe enough in leaving the old wording as it is and the matter could be looked into.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I suggest that we let
the bill stand for the time being, and we can look up the matter so that there will be no misunderstanding. We have no supreme court in Saskatchewan; there is no supreme court in Manitoba and the same applies to Quebec.


John Thomas Hackett: The only change is the
addition of the words, "or a magistrate."


Frank Eric Jaenicke: If the law is faulty now, why not amend it when we have the bill before us?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the law is working, why bother to change it?


John Thomas Hackett: Possibly we might pass
the section as it is and then, if there is any difficulty, it could be cured on third reading.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will not ask for third
reading tonight. On the motion for third reading it can be referred back to the com-

Supply-Public Works
mittee with instructions that they have power to amend. I shall see whether such amendment is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State of External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
279.	Departmental administration, $227,019.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: When I was speaking
about Ripple Rock just before the committee rose the other day, the minister interjected to ask me if I had a written statement from Colonel Swan as to his opinion on the offer of the Malahat Shipping Company. I have no statement from Colonel Swan, but I have a newspaper clipping from the Vancouver Sun of March 27 last in which Colonel Swan is quoted as being in general approval of the method advanced by Captain Lawson. One short part of this article reads:
One of these schemes which I examined is that of Captain Lawson of this city, and a second by B. F. Lundy, also of Vancouver. I feel certain there is certainty that such a method would be successful.
That is my authority for the statement I made the other night. I have on my file a list of various organizations in Vancouver which have stated they are in favour of this plan. Without taking up more time of the committee, I think this is a good place for me to make my point to the minister. Here is a rock which it would be very advisable to remove. The department has attempted to remove it on previous occasions, and there is a considerable public demand in British Columbia for its demolition. This company comes along and puts up a proposition for the removal of the rock on a no cure, no pay basis. The minister's department very properly enunciated three prerequisites to a contract. Those conditions are that the minister is satisfied with the technical assistants, that the company has adequate financial backing, and that No. 2 rock will be removed. Surely a year after the original offer was made this matter could be settled one way or the other, not by my saying whether or not I have Colonel Swan's signed affidavit, but by the minister's department getting in touch with Colonel Swan, the engineer upon whom
Captain Lawson apparently relies. If what Captain Lawson says proves to be the case, you can go ahead. If it proves not to be the case, you can turn the offer down. But it seems to me that a matter like this cannot be settled from a distance of 3,000 miles. Surely there is enough here to warrant the minister going into it thoroughly and accepting the offer if it is good or rejecting it if it is bad. I see no reason why this matter should go on month by month in an indeterminate state. That is the particular point I wish to bring to the minister's attention now. He said that there had been thirteen different suggestions since the last work was done on the rock. I feel that all those thirteen suggestions should be taken seriously and a decision made on each of them. I think that on the particular proposition I have mentioned to the committee there is enough to warrant investigation and to require a decision to be made.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I should like the hon. member to understand that there is no finality concerning a project of this kind. We have tried for years to remove the rock and we have spent large sums of money, but the time came when even those wTho had made favourable reports, just as Mr. Swan believed that such a scheme would succeed, had to admit that no headway was being made. On the other hand, every day that went by, the costs were piling up on the government and we could not see the end of the project even with the best methods that my engineers thought could be applied. That involved a barge being held by overhead cables. The government at one time decided to dispose of the barge, pay the accounts, and instruct our engineers to study other means that might be suggested or that could be devised. Even at that time I sent my chief engineer, Mr. Cameron, one of the outstanding engineers in the country, who has since retired, out there. That was the last work he did in the department. He spent three weeks out on the coast in the fall of 1945 and a few months afterwards resigned or was superannuated. I have to rely on my own engineers for their judgment on the different schemes suggested. The last scheme that Mr. Lawson suggested was a kind of platform which would be held by cables, as we try to hold the barge, but still my engineers say that you cannot proceed with drilling from a platform which is held only by cables. There has to be some way of stabilizing that platform by some anchor-
Supply -Public Works

age. I do not think there are many engineers who could agree on a practical method of blasting that rock.
The hon. member says that we should not delay month after month and year after year. I am not so sure but that prudence would caution us to be very careful, because during three or four years we have continued to spend the people's money and to get no results. The last estimate we received was for nearly $2 million. If we made that expenditure and got no results, would I receive the approval of members of parliament for making that expenditure? Members could easily find some reason for saying:	You
should not have gone ahead so quickly about this but should have got more advice. My own engineers are doubtful about it, but there are so many people who are not engineers who think they know how it should be done. Opinions come from everybody. When I was out there I did not know what to do to get away from all the telephone calls I was receiving. I would inquire if they were engineers, and they would say no, but that they knew how to blast this rock out of Seymour Narrows.
Before I would recommend to the government that an appropriation be placed in the estimates to proceed with this work, I would need more advice than we have received. I must say that I was not impressed with the last letter the company wrote to us with respect to the "no cure, no pay" offer. We had inquired into the financial standing of that company and whether they had experienced personnel, and they took a very long time to reply. I have not read one of the last letters. They still maintain the "no cure, no pay" proposition, but they have started to say: You could make some advance to us when we start on the work. That is not a "no cure, no pay" proposition, if we are to make progress payments.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is not my information. In the letters I have had there is no suggestion of anything but the "no cure, no pay" basis.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not read the letter myself. I am taking the word of my deputy minister, and I am sorry I said that if it was not a fact because I would not want to harm the case of these gentlemen. When we asked them whom they had employed for engineering advice they mentioned Mr. Swan. I am advised that, though he thinks this method would be a good one, he is not ready to go as bondsman to guarantee the completion of the work by that scheme. I am putting it fairly to the hon.

member. If he had the responsibility of the expenditure of the money and his officers, the engineers of his department, were not satisfied that the scheme would succeed, I do not know what position he would take. But personally I am hesitant about it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Does the minister say that his engineers have gone into this specific proposition of the Malahat Shipping Company and made all the inquiries they consider necessary about it?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps they can go farther in their study of the conditions, but the report I received was that the platform scheme is only a modification of the barge scheme held in place by overhead cables.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not want to get into a discussion of engineering details, but I understand that the platform will not be held in place by overhead cables but will be set in the rock. I am only asking now that the minister take this offer seriously and see to it that the appropriate officers of his department investigate it thoroughly both from the engineering side and as to the financial backing of the company. If he finds either that they have not a proper system or have not the requisite finances behind them, then I shall not be heard from any more. But I do not like the matter left in this uncertain state where, so far as I can find out, everything has been done by correspondence and there has been no move by the department to go to Vancouver and look into Captain Lawson's offer thoroughly. I suggest that that be done.


John Lambert Gibson: This rock happens to be in my riding and I think I should have a few words to say about it. The hon. member for Vancouver Burrard has brought up a subject that merits a hearing, and if this is truly a "no-cure, no pay" proposition I can see no reason why the minister would not consider it seriously. I myself would think that probably a fair proposal would be to say to them: You start it. After all, I can assure you that no one can do any harm to that rock, and if they knocked ten feet off it would be fair to pay them one-third of the cost, and if they knocked twenty feet off, pay them another third. As far as engineering ability is concerned, that is something I would not emphasize too much. In my opinion we had too much engineering ability on it the last time. The removal of Ripple rock is not an ordinary engineering problem. I think a number of hard-rock miners and good loggers would do a good job on it. As

Supply-Public Works
regards the menagerie that existed there the last time, I had difficulty in explaining to the people of Campbell River and the adjacent area how it was that the government could find money to spend up there and still could not provide funds for necessary public works. I think we should know definitely whether this is a "no-cure, no pay" proposition. I would not be afraid of that rock. They cannot do it any harm, and if they blasted ten feet off into the water they would have proved that they had a sound proposition. I would not stop them from going ahead to that extent. Probably it is not the way in which a government does things, but I could never understand why it would not call for tenders.


Alphonse Fournier: We did.


John Lambert Gibson: Have you ever called for tenders?


Alphonse Fournier: The first time we asked for tenders we received a firm price of $250,000, and * they did not even put the barge in place with that amount.


John Lambert Gibson: You did not pay the money in that case?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. Actually we have paid $892,000, and when people ask me for floats and breakwaters along the coast when I have spent some $900,000 I feel sore.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: You should feel ashamed.


John Lambert Gibson: Last year I congratulated the minister on stopping the work that was being carried on there because I thought he had done a wise thing, and before he starts again I would suggest that he get a firm tender without any money in advance until he gets some rock blown off.


Mr. FRASER:: The other night mention was made of some of the offices owned by the department. I believe the city council of Ottawa a few months ago discussed the smoke nuisance. I do not think it is much use trying to clean up the offices until such time as the government stops the smoke nuisance, because I have noticed from the parliamentary restaurant here, looking down at the temporary building, that during cold weather the stack throws off smoke for an hour at a time and that smoke drifts over to the supreme court building and over the city. Look over to the union station and you will see the stack behind that station throwing off smoke hour after hour, though only on certain days. Look at the national revenue building; at certain times-not at all times but sometimes- the stack there throws off smoke that blankets
the Chateau Laurier hotel. That is why I believe their curtains have to be washed so often. The curtains in my room get black in about two weeks' time. I was wondering whether there was some way the department could check on that. A year ago I mentioned the Daly building, and since that time the stack there has not thrown off smoke. The engineers must have done a good job on the oil furnaces. I suggest that the other furnaces need checking on. The minister should get after them and see if something cannot be done.


Alphonse Fournier: We did do something at the Daly building.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, and that is clean now.


Alphonse Fournier: Down here we have the central heating plant for all these buildings and they are lower down. We will take a note of what the hon. gentleman has said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There must be some way of stepping the excessive smoke. It happens only at certain times, but when it comes it blankets all that part of the city and the supreme court building. There is another building I am thinking of. I do not know whether it belongs to the Department of National Revenue or is in the income tax section, but the stack there throws off smoke in clouds, and the prevailing wind is from that direction to the Chateau Laurier. It certainly covers everything, and I believe we get some of that smoke in the House of Commons.


John Lambert Gibson: Also the sulphur.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but that is not a government project. Can the minister tell me whether the government owns all eight buildings that are occupied by the national film board, or whether some of these are rented?


Alphonse Fournier: Most of them are rented. They occupy, I believe, four or five.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe there are eight buildings altogether.


Alphonse Fournier: There are eight. We own the John street building and we put up a fireproof building for storing films. They have space on Sparks street.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Which is expensive space.


Alphonse Fournier: It is all quite expensive, but the film board has eight different locations and the situation is far from being satisfactory. That is why there was a certain vote to prepare plans.
Supply-Public Works


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can they not go into one of these temporary buildings built during the war?


Alphonse Fournier: They are all occupied. All the buildings here, except space at the records building on the farm and except for changes that are being made every once in a while in the city, are occupied. As I told the committee the other night, we own fifty-two buildings in Ottawa and rent ninety-six. Though the space situation is not as bad as it was eighteen months ago, it is still not satisfactory.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the rental?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will let me proceed. I am on the general item now and I will give the information as soon as we reach his question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There was something else that struck me last winter. When we had a heavy fall of snow I noticed that the trucks were running down here-


Alphonse Fournier: That does not come under my department but under the federal district commission.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I wish to direct a question to the minister regarding the proposed federal building for Flin Flon, Manitoba. The minister has had many communications-[DOT]


Alphonse Fournier: For three hours we have been discussing general questions. When we get to the architectural branch in that province I will answer the question with regard to Flin Flon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you accept the question even if there is not a vote?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly. Any building you wish to suggest.


George Randolph Pearkes: With reference to Ripple Rock, I wish to take this opportunity of thanking the minister for the work which is being done in Nanaimo harbour where he has done a great deal of dredging and is improving the vharf there. I should not like him to think that is the only work which is necessary around the coastline of Vancouver island. I could name quite a number of other places which need not only fishermen's floats, but wharves, breakwaters and dredging, in exactly the same way as the hon. member for Halifax went around his coastline and mentioned every fishing village there. If any money is to be saved by discontinuing the work on the blowing up of Ripple Rock-which my fishermen consider in the main a menace to the Yankee skippers who do not know those waters; my fishermen

can go over it at any time-I should like it to be spent in the constituency of Nanaimo. I have not a great deal of hope because there is no by-election coming along this year, but I still live in hope.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural brandh-
280.	Branch administration, $271,316.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Once again I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to wages and holidays with pay for cleaning women in public buildings. This is a matter which I have discussed with the minister before on a number of occasions. I appreciate the fact that he has given attention to it and from time to time has been able to have certain improvements made. In fact, this very year an improvement was made with respect to holidays and sick leave for these women. Prior to this year, there was no general provision for holidays or sick leave, but owing to the requirements of the provincial law in Manitoba arrangements were made two or three years ago for the women there to get six days' holiday or sick leave a year, but the one exhausted the other. However, this year the minister changed that and made it a general provision throughout the service so far as this work is concerned. The women now get six days' holidays with pay a year; and in addition to that, they are entitled, if they are off sick, to six more days without loss of pay. I can assure the minister that this provision is very much appreciated. However, so far as the women working in the public buildings of Winnipeg are concerned, I would point out that this announcement was not of as much an advantage to them as it was to the women here in Ottawa, because they already had the six days' holidays a year with pay. I would point out to the minister that the hours of work there are a little longer than they are here. The reason is obvious. For example, in this building the women must do the work in the morning; but in Winnipeg the work is done in the evening and it is possible for them to work for a longer period of time. Many of these women are getting along in years. Many are widows who have been forced to find work of this kind in order to keep themselves going. I am sure the minister will agree with me that it is not too much to suggest that they should have two weeks' holidays a year. I hope he will continue the good work he has done in interesting himself in the case of these women, and will try to get that extension at as early a day as possible.
Just before the minister made his announcement about these improvements on February

Supply-Public Works
6 of this year, there was some press publicity with regard to what was coming. Unfortunately, the publicity went a little farther than the minister's statement went, because it indicated that, in addition to the holidays and sick leave to which I have referred, there would be some increases in pay. The minister's statement did not include that. When I questioned him about it, he told me that the matter of recommending rates of pay for these women comes under the Department of Labour. Subsequently I directed my questions to the Minister of Labour with regard to this matter, and on February 10 he made a reply which reads in part as follows, as reported at page 252 of Hansard:
The Department of Labour has undertaken a survey to ascertain whether on the basis of prevailing rates of pay this particular group of employees is entitled to an increase in remuneration.
I allowed a considerable period of time to elapse, until April 29, when I again directed a question to the Minister of Labour as to whether that survey had been completed. In his reply on that date, as recorded at page 2518 of Hansard, the minister said:
Since the beginning of the year the Department of Labour, on the request of the departments concerned, has made recommendations with respect to wage rates for this class of service at the following points: Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, London, Winnipeg, Montreal, Kingston. Brantford, Kitchener. Vancouver, Sudbury, Wallaceburg and Saint John, New Brunswick.
That statement of the minister suggests that recommendations with respect to wage rates had been made at those various points, but does not say whether any changes in wage rates had been made. The present minister's statement, as he will recall, did not cover wage rates. It just covered holidays with pay and sick leave. The concluding sentence in this same reply of the Minister of Labour was as follows:
The survey to which my hon. friend refers, and which I mentioned on February 10, is not yet completed.
So far as the rumoured increases in wages for these women are concerned, that means that nothing had happened up until April 29. At that point it seems that the Minister of Public Works was still waiting for the Minister of Labour to have his survey completed and make a recommendation to him. I recognize that there has to be this reference from one department to another in the government service and that there has to be a proper allocation of jurisdiction. I also recognize that the Minister of Public Works has shown an interest in these women, and I know he will do everything he can to expedite the
matter in the proper way. So I am asking him now if he can tell the committee whether anything has happened since April 29, and in particular if he will continue to do his best on these two counts: (1) the matter of extending to two weeks the holidays with pay, particularly for those who work longer hours, as is the case in Winnipeg; and (2) the matter of continuing his negotiations with the Department of Labour looking toward an increase in pay for these women cleaners.


Alphonse Fournier: To answer the first question, the difficulty is that these are part-time employees who work two or three hours a day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For how many months a year?


Alphonse Fournier: They work the year round. But actually, since February, the government has granted six days' or a week's holidays with pay and six days' sick leave. Now the request is for two weeks' holidays with pay. That would come in line with the ordinary civil servant. We compare what we do in the service with what is done in industry elsewhere. The objection is that in Ottawa they work for only two or two and a half hours in the morning; they do not work all day. If they were working all day I am told two weeks' holidays would be quite justified, but in view of the few hours of work they do a day it would be hardly justifiable to give them two weeks' holidays. My officials give me examples from other cities in the country where people are employed part time, and where they are given only one week's holidays with pay. That does not mean I agree with that policy. I live in this district and have been living here for a long time. I know a great many of the 'people working in this district; I sympathize with their case, and I think I have been their advocate for a good many years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: I am still very well disposed toward them, but I am not the only one who has to decide these matters. One thing is certain: I do not offer any opposition when a good suggestion comes to the fore.
As to the second point, in connection with salaries, in every town and city mentioned by the Minister of Labour inquiries were made and increases were given in the rates of pay. There are none of those places where there w-ere not increases following the investigation. Perhaps my hon. friend does not exactly understand the procedure that must be gone through. Public works, who employ and pay
Supply-Public Works

these people, get a request from Toronto, for instance, saying, here are the conditions of work, and the salary does not equal that paid by other industries in the same locality. We send a request to treasury board, which advises us in this matter, and treasury board goes to the labour department, which carries on the survey and makes a report. Then, when treasury board makes a decision it is confirmed by the cabinet. Public works does not interfere at all in the fixing of these rates, except to make representations to treasury board that for similar work outside or in other departments the rates are not similar. We await a recommendation from the labour department to treasury board. I think we are paying the rates paid in the locality by others employing the same kind of labour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the comment of the minister, and if my previous remarks are checked over I think it will be noted that I referred to the difference between the hours of work here in Ottawa and the hours of work in Winnipeg, where I am a little more familiar with the situation. I know that in this very building for example, the women come in the morning and work for a very short period of time. In the dominion public building and the customs building in Winnipeg, for example, they work in the evening. I would rather not state the time, because I dislike making any statement that is not exact, but I believe their working time runs to about six hours a night. I know the total number of hours they work a week comes so close to the hours listed in the Manitoba provincial law that the minister recognized a few years ago that they should be treated as full-time employees in that province. I do not like to make a distinction between the women in one city and those in another. The minister would agree with me, I know, that the best that possibly can be done for them all across the country should be done. But I ask him to consider, and to have his officials consider, that women who are working, let us say six hours a day, putting in thirty-six or thirty-eight hours a week, or maybe more -because they work six nights a week in Winnipeg-are in a little different position with respect to this matter of two weeks' holidays a year.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall have my officials look into that case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I (rust that will be done from the angle I have indicated, because I point out to the minister it was that difference what buildings we rent for the use of this film years ago to provide one week's holidays with

pay for these people in cities like Winnipeg, even before it was done here.
With regard1 to the other matter, concerning wage rates, did I understand the minister to indicate that there had been an adjustment since April 29? I mention that date, because at that time the Minister of Labour said the survey to which I have referred, and which he had mentioned on February 10, had not been completed.


Alphonse Fournier: No. These investigations and surveys in regard to rates of pay go on the year round. I think I signed' something not long ago making a recommendation to the treasury board for an increase in regard to London or some other city. This process goes on all the time. I am regularly signing requests for changes in the rates of pay for these people. As wages go up in. one city, we have to follow the rates paid in that locality. We do not hold back; we follow those rates. We advise treasury board; the labour department makes the investigation and either confirms our views or makes an adverse report, and then the government decides.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it is likely that, this discussion we have had tonight will help keep that investigation active?


Alphonse Fournier: My officials will read Hansard tomorrow morning and see everything the hon. member has said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not backward in speaking pretty plainly to ministers when I think they are not doing what I feel is the right thing, but I feel that the Minister of Public Works has a sympathetic interest in the human factors involved in this situation, and I know it is in good hands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
281.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $5,753,382.
Alphonse Fournier: Is this the vote under which the hon. member for Peterborough West wanted to know about the buildings in Ottawa?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In connection with the film board. If you do not have it now-


Alphonse Fournier: I have the list of the ninety-five buildings we have rented in Ottawa.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If you give it to me at a later date it will be all right.


Alphonse Fournier: You want to know what buildings we rent for the use of the film board?

Supply-Public Works


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, and the cost of their upkeep; also the buildings you own, which they occupy, and the cost of their upkeep. If the minister could give me that at a later date I would be quite satisfied, because it might hold him up now.


Alphonse Fournier: Very well.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Under this item provision is made for ninety-five elevator operators. Can the minister tell us if any of these men are on the permanent staff?


Alphonse Fournier: We have ninety-six permanent elevator operators and 156 temporaries.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: According to the details at page 201 of the estimates, there are ninety-five elevator operators. This comes under maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds. I assume that is in Ottawa?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. According to my notes, there are ninety-six.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Probably the minister has operators for Ottawa and outside Ottawa together. I was particularly concerned about elevator operators in this city. I should like to know how many of them are on the permanent staff. If the minister cannot tell us that, perhaps he can say how many years they have to serve before they become permanent.


Alphonse Fournier: They are
appointed by the civil service commission, as are other civil servants, and they have to stay a year on probation, I believe, before they are made permanent. But at the end of the year, if their services have been satisfactory, they are given permanency. I believe they are all returned men who operate our elevators; at least all I know are returned men.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not complaining. I just wished to find out how long they must serve before they were placed on the permanent staff.


Alphonse Fournier: My understanding is that, according to the Civil Service Act, it is a year. After one year's good service, they are made permanent. However, during the war I believe there was a regulation under which no permanent appointments would be made, until the end of the war, with a view to giving the returned men an equal chance.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many hours do these men work? Are they on an eight-hour day?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, that is what I have been told. They work on eight-hour shifts, but they do not always work the same shifts.


Solon Earl Low: Would the minister inquire whether or not, after one year of satisfactory service, these elevator men are given permanent appointments? I believe he will find that some are not.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not my officials with me, but in my note I see there are two figures. However, the note does show that there are ninety-six permanent and sixty temporary, making a total of 156 in Ottawa.


Solon Earl Low: That is all the more reason the minister should have a careful check made, so as to see that no returned soldier has been on for more than a year without receiving an appointment.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall look into that, but I would be most surprised if they did not get permanency. After a year's time, these men know the law quite well as to what they may expect. However, there are still sixty on the temporary staff and ninety-six who are permanent.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The minister may be in for a slight surprise. There is one other matter I would draw to his attention. I realize he cannot know about every detail in his department. Nevertheless I would ask that some consideration be given to these elevator operators who receive no relief, or who are not allowed off perhaps for a smoke. Cases have been brought to my attention where, perhaps unintentionally, an elevator operator has been kept at his task for several hours without relief. Would the minister look into this to see that a proper system of relief is instituted, so that when a man wishes to leave someone else may take his place?


Alphonse Fournier: I shall look into the matter, although this is the first time I have heard that complaint. I see elevator men during the day in this building, and we are not so strict that we keep them down to a rigid discipline.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I realize that, and I am not complaining; but there may have been some cases the minister did not hear about.


Alphonse Fournier: We shall look into that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I can support that statement, because I have heard of similar cases.
Supply-Public Works

However I think in most instances relief has been delayed because of sickness, or for some other such reason.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall certainly look into it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would not snow removal from the House of Commons grounds be included in this item?


Alphonse Fournier: That has been under the federal district commission since 1932.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister make a statement about the condition of the elevators in this building? What is their condition?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Decrepit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once in a while one finds oneself spending an extra ten or fifteen minutes at the bottom of the well.


Alphonse Fournier: We have yearly contracts with the Otis-Fensom Elevator Company and the other large company-


An hon. MEMBER:: Turnbull.


Alphonse Fournier: -to service
nearly all our elevators in our buildings. We have yearly contracts under which we pay different amounts for different types of elevators and the companies, in turn, guarantee to keep those elevators in good repair and working order. I have received complaints from elevator men to the effect that sometimes they have difficulties with the elevators. Immediately the foreman among the elevator men calls the company, and men are sent to make repairs.
In certain buildings we have old elevators, and perhaps a change would be all to the good. But while we have them, we try to keep them in as good a state of repair as we can.


Mr. McKAY:: Does the minister know that at this very moment the elevator at the back is operating with its doors open?


Alphonse Fournier: I noticed that it was stopped for a while today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These elevators get pretty heavy service, for the type they are.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I heard the minister refer to returned soldiers, and I should like to think that after one year's service, if they have given good service they would be permanently employed. I should like to have some assurance to that effect.


Alphonse Fournier: My impression is that that is what happens.


Alan Cockeram: I did not get that impression from what was said before.


Alphonse Fournier: The Department of Public Works does not appoint elevator men. We send a request to the civil service commission, and they send a man who is on the eligible list. We take him on and, according to the act, at the end of the year if he has rendered good service he becomes a permanent civil servant. If there were any delay, it would not be the department which would be making the permanent appointment; it would be the civil service commission.


Alan Cockeram: In other words, a man may give good service to the minister's department but may not receive the appointment. Any man who has served in the armed forces and who has given good service for a year in the minister's department should receive the appointment.


Alphonse Fournier: I agree.


Alan Cockeram: Irrespective of the civil service commission.


Alphonse Fournier: I agree, if it is done according to regulations. But in every branch of every department we do not find 100 per cent who are permanent. Some leeway is always allowed; before the war it was ten per cent. I agree that any man who is rendering good service to the government should be made a permanent appointee after a year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
282.	Maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $7,122,209.
Mr. STOKES:: Recently I received a letter from the secretary of the chamber of commerce of the city of Belleville enclosing copy of a resolution passed by that body asking me to draw to the attention of the government the unsatisfactory condition of public buildings in that city. I was not satisfied with the letter because it was not definite enough, and I took the matter up with the secretary. The reply I received was to the effect that the resolution was directed mainly at the post office building in Belleville; they were criticizing the condition of that building quite severely. I should like to draw the minister's attention to that.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall certainly instruct my officials to make inquiries.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Further on, there is a revote to cover a building at Hazelton, but

Supply-Public Works
under this item which covers the maintenance of buildings outside Ottawa I should like to draw to the minister's attention the conditions under which the government telegraph operators work in Hazelton. There has been no winterization of this building and the telegraph operators have really suffered. There has been a great deal of sickness because the building is not a proper one.


Alphonse Fournier: We must have a revote here because we are not quite sure whether we shall proceed this year.


Eric Bowness McKay: There seems to be quite a substantial increase in this item over 1946-47 which I should like the minister to explain.


Alphonse Fournier: The increase totals $982,125. One item of increase is salaries, amounting to $996,504, of which $339,379 is due to the cost of living bonuses being added to the salaries. This leaves a net increase in connection with salaries, of $675,125, of which $285,817 is due to 207 new positions having been authorized by treasury board, and $371,308 is due to increases in the salary range of elevator operators, engineers, firemen, char service, plumbers, electricians and carpenters.


Eric Bowness McKay: That would apply to the next item also?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: At the bottom of the details on page 204 of the estimates is a large item of $75,000 for sundries. Can the minister give us a break-down of that item?


Alphonse Fournier: The details are:
Printing and stationery	 $2,500
Travelling expenses	 i5,000
Disbursements	 10,000
Photographic work	 12,000
Legal services	 5,000
Miscellaneous	 15,500
Municipal charges	 15,000


Alan Cockeram: It seems to me that if we are to have any degree of saving in these items we should be able to break down in more detail an item of $15,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I have given about all the break-down that could be reasonably requested. If you were to ask me for a break-down of the $2,000 for travelling expenses I could not give it unless I had in mind the trips the officials are to make during that period. I do not know of any department that could break it down more than that.


Alan Cockeram: I was not thinking so much of travelling expenses, which constitute quite a small item. Not only in the minister's department, but all the way through there
should be some degree of efficiency and economy which is not apparent in any of the estimates now before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch
[Stage Direction]
Construction, repairs and improvements of public 'buildings-New Brunswick-
284. Edmundston-Building for customs (revote $48,000), $64,000.
'Saint John post office-addition, alterations and improvements (revote $40,300), $50,000.
Sussex public building-addition and fittings (revote, $15,000), $20,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The first item refers to a building for customs at Edmundston. Is that right at the bridge across the Saint John river?


Alphonse Fournier: According to the plan I have here, it is a new customs-immigration building right across the international bridge.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Last year I crossed at Edmundston on to the Maine side of the river, and when I came back after having seen the fine buildings on the United States side I was ashamed of what I saw on the Canadian side. I made up my mind to mention this and I am glad to see this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Prince Edward Island-
284. -Charlottetown public building (revote), $50,000,
Mr. MacNAUGHT:: Has the minister a statement to make on this expenditure.


Alphonse Fournier: This is to provide for the construction of a new building for posit office, customs and other government services at Charlottetown. The existing building which was constructed- in 1884-85 is totally inadequate to meet the requirements. The present building will be assigned to unemployment insurance and the Department of Trade and Commerce. We did not expend any money on this project last year. The plans have not yet been completed, but we expect to have them within a few months and we will ask for tenders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Quebec-
287. Armstrong - customs and immigration building (revote), $45,000.
Beauport-repairs to armoury (revote), $9,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $400,000.
Dorval airport-postal accommodation- (revote), $25,000.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Drummondville

public building site (revote, $6,000), $25,000.
Hull public building-addition and alterations (revote), $6,000.
Joliette public building-addition to site ((revote), $15,000.
Laeolle (Blackpool)-^-building for customs (revote, $45,000), $100,000.
Lae Megantic public building-addition, alterations and improvements (revote), $19,000.
La Tuque public building-alterations and extension (revote, $6,500), $8,000.
Magog public building-alterations and improvements (revote), $10,000.
Montmagny-site for public building (revote), $5,600.
Montreal-building for British and foreign mail (revote), $300,000.
Montreal-customs examining warehouse-repairs (revote), $25,000.
Montreal Hochelaga postal station-addition and improvements (revote $20,000), $25,000.
Montreal immigration building-alterations and improvements (revote, $75,000), $95,000.
Montreal Notre Dame de Grace postal station -addition to site (revote), $11,250.
Montreal old examining warehouse-addition, alterations and improvements (revote), $60,000.
Montreal-office building-(revote), $300,000.
Montreal-postal station "B"-addition (revote), $200,000.
Montreal postal terminal-addition (revote), $250,000.
Montreal postal terminal-parcel storage system (revote), $50,000.
Montreal St. Henri postal station-site (revote. $15,000), $25,000.
Noranda

public building (revote, $41,000), $57,000.
Phillipsburg-building for customs and immigration (revote), $50,000.
Quebec old post office building-improvements (revote), $10,000.
Quebec old post office building-elevators (revote, $45,000), $70,000.
St. Joseph d'Alma public building-addition, retaining wall, fittings, etc. (revote, $19,000), $35,800.
Sherbrooke-public building (revote), $75,000.
Three Rivers public building-addition (revote), $60,000.
Valleyfiekl public building-addition, alterations and fittings (revote, $30,000), $70,000.
Alan Cockeram: There are a number of revotes here and I should like to ask what check has been made of them. After all, you had the estimates of a year ago and you are revoting money today. How close are the revotes coming to the actual expenditures?


Alphonse Fournier: In December,
1945, the department prepared estimates for 1946-47 and those estimates were voted in August, 1946. We prepared plans where the staff was available, but in most cases we did not reach the point where we could even ask for tenders, while in some cases where we asked for tenders we did not receive any bids. If the hon. member will look over the list he will find that in ninety-five per cent of the cases the amounts are the same as we voted last year. They are due to lack of

staff, lack of materials, lack of man-power and the advice received by my department from other departments as to the situation in the country. This year they expect to make more progress on these revotes.


Alan Cockeram: I think the minister is wrong because everybody knows that between last fall and today there has been a distinct increase in prices. I do not see how you can call it a revote when you know that something that was voted last year will cost you more this year. I think the minister should in presenting a revote tell the committee what the increased expenditure will be. If we are revoting an amount I should like to think the job can be done with the money that is being voted today.


Alphonse Fournier: Take the first item, for instance, for a customs and immigration building at Armstrong, just to show how it works. This is a revote of $45,000 for the construction of a building for customs and immigration purposes on a government-owned site at Armstrong, Quebec. The proposed building will cost so much. The estimate they give is the same this year as last year. This money has not been spent. We are having plans prepared and we will call for tenders.


Alan Cockeram: The minister says this revote is the same as last year. Anybody in business knows that costs have risen since last year, and I think the minister and his officials are wrong in revoting just the same amount of money they asked for last year.


Alphonse Fournier: We do not in every instance.


Alan Cockeram: Take the case of Armstrong which the minister cited. I know that district, and I know that you could not build a custom house in Armstrong today for the same amount you could a year ago. We know there has been an increase in costs, the minister should give some indication of what the increased cost will be. The minister's officials are wrong when they say they could put up a building for 845,000 in Armstrong last year and this year they can do it for the same amount of money.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me, I will appeal to his own experience. Imagine for a moment that he is minister of public works and that last year in the month of August the amount of 845,000 was submitted to my hon. friend as minister of public works to put up this building. Tenders were asked for in the fall, but it was found impossible to go on with the work because of the

Supply-Public Works
lateness of the season. My hon. friend knows how difficult and how expensive it is to build cement foundations when the weather is very cold. Therefore the building was postponed until this year, and I presume that the department will proceed with the amount of this revote. If the cost is higher this year than last the building will not be completed, and in the estimates next year there will be another item to finish the building. My hon. friend knows that very well.
I will now make a suggestion with which he will probably agree. It is that the estimates of the Department of Public Works should come before us in the early part of the session for several reasons, but especially because it is easier to cut lumber in the winter when the sap is not in the tree, and therefore it may be possible to encourage some people in the vicinity to do the work, which would save a lot of transportation costs. I have enjoyed this discussion very much, which is just as friendly as the one that has been going on with my hon. friend. The tone which has been adopted by the Minister of Public Works makes a great difference. I enjoy discussing things with the hon. member for York South. He is sensible enough to understand that it is impossible to proceed otherwise than as the minister has done, and he is not dogmatic.


Alan Cockeram: I agree with everything the hon. member for Temiscouata has said. I know there are seasonal difficulties which must be overcome, and I am of the opinion that the officers of the department have tried to do a good job for the money that has been placed at their disposal. At the same time, in spite of the seasonal difficulties, it does seem irresponsible from an accounting point of view that the minister should come back to this house and ask for a revote of the same amount of money if he knows it will not do the job. The minister is just as well aware as I am that it will cost more today than it would have cost a year ago. His officials must realize that the money we voted a year ago is not sufficient to do the job they are expected to do today. Yet this amount is put in the estimates as a revote. It is not a revote, because the building will cost us more money, and the minister should tell us how much more it will cost.


Alphonse Fournier: In many
instances the items here are the amounts that my officials tell me will be expended during the year. Take the first item for a customs and immigration building at Armstrong. It started off in the fall of 1945 with an estimate of $35,000. When we got
to August we asked for another $10,000 in the supplementary estimates. When the main estimates were prepared in December the item was $45,000, which was the figure of last year's vote. We are in June now. These estimates were prepared in November of last year and they left my office in December to be approved by the government and the treasury board before being printed for the January issue. Estimates in detail like this are prepared in September, October, November and December and then have to be approved. So that the hon. member is reading things which were prepared six months ahead of time.


Alan Cockeram: They are six months
behind. The minister said that last December certain money had been spent. If he will add all that up he will find it is more than the money that was voted a year ago.


Alphonse Fournier: We have not
even started to spend this money.


Alan Cockeram: The minister said that at Armstrong there had been spent-


Alphonse Fournier: We did not spend a cent.


Alan Cockeram: That is not what the minister said. I may be misinterpreting him and I am willing to admit that; but I think that, having regard to the fact that we are voting certain moneys for certain public projects with which none of us will disagree, unless there is absolute waste, when we voted money a year ago and come back today to revote the same amount it is not sound business practice, and the minister should tell us what the extra cost will be. In his charming way he has tried to tell us that something will happen at Armstrong, but I am positive that what he has said1 does not add up. Two and two are always four, but the minister made some statements that seemed to suggest that two and two made five.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think the hon. gentleman understood what I said. This is an estimate. My architects say that for the site and supervision of that building in Armstrong, we shall need, according to the plans and specifications which we are preparing, $40,000. We will advertise for tenders-


Alan Cockeram: Forty thousand?


Alphonse Fournier: The sum of $45,000. We will advertise for tenders and, before I receive them, I shall not know whether they will be below or above this amount of $45,000, nor would the hon. member know.
Supply-Public Works


Alan Cockeram: That was a year ago.


Alphonse Fournier: A year ago, and today. When I receive the tenders, if the amount is anything like $80,000, then someone in my department will listen to what the minister has to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the point which the hon. member for South York is raising must have been met by the very nature of the item that is before us, because item 287 includes a good many sub-items. I have been checking up, and I find that thirty sub-items in item 287 are revotes. Of these thirty, fifteen are exactly the same as they were last year; ten have been increased and five decreased. That seems to me to suggest that the items have been reconsidered. It is not a case of merely bringing them back.


Alphonse Fournier: They certainly were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In some cases there has been a considerable increase. It seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member has been met.


Alphonse Fournier: He would like to have in every instance an increase because of labour and material having gone up in the last year, but I am relying on my architects to give estimates for certain projects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And apparently they have done that.


Alphonse Fournier: For this building at Armstrong, when they prepared this estimate in October they said it would cost $45,000. I shall know when the tenders come in whether they are above that sum, but you cannot ask me what will be the difference in these projects. I asked this house for a vote in the last days of August.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have changed fifteen out of thirty.


Alphonse Fournier: It is from thirty-five to forty-five.


Alan Cockeram: It is crazjr.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not believe the hon. gentleman means that.


John Thomas Hackett: Can the minister tell me whether the item of $75,000 which is down for a public building for Sherbrooke has to do with the acquisition of a building by the government, or whether it has to do with repairs to a building which is being leased and about which I asked a question the other day?


Alphonse Fournier: This $75,000 in the estimates will be employed for the pur-
IMr. A. Fournier.]
chase of a site. I believe we have taken expropriation proceedings. If not, they are to be taken in the near future.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to be certain that this item does not refer to the building which has been leased for a period of five years and which is to be used by the Department of-


Alphonse Fournier: Income tax. This is a revote of $75,000 to provide toward the purchase of a site and the erection thereon of a public building to accommodate the following government services at Sherbrooke:	Post
Office Department, department of health and welfare, labour, marine-transport-


John Thomas Hackett: It is not necessary for the minister to g.o any farther to satisfy me. It is not the item concerning which I asked a question the other day having to do with the housing of income tax department.


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Alan Cockeram: I am not satisfied to let this thing go right now. We have a tremendous sum of money, millions of dollars being voted>, and I have in my mind as a businessman the necessity for being a little more explicit about these figures. I do not think you can say it is simply a revote from last year, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman understands what a revote is.


Alan Cockeram: I understand just as well as the minister what a revote is, but it seems to me we are voting money for a specific job and the money is collected from the taxpayers of the country. I know we have to get down and save dollars and cents for the benefit of the people, and it seems to me that if we revote everything, we are not trying to economize on their behalf. I think the Canadian people are perfectly willing to pay a fair shot, but when in public works we disregard everything and come out and vote this and that, which we were prepared to do in war time, and then revote it, the minister should be more explicit. I suggest that he should be more explicit about this revoting. If we are revoting money on the old expenditures it should be increased; it should not be the same amount. If we are revoting it on other grounds, then it should be cancelled completely. I repeat, the minister should be more explicit on the question of revoting. When we read these estimates that are being presented today we see revote after revote. What does it mean? It is the same money we voted last

Post-UNRRA Relief
year and are asked to vote now. Unless there is a good reason why it should be revoted, unless the figures are exactly the same, we should not revote the same money.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a word to say to my hon. friend. He will admit that the amounts mentioned in the estimates are approximate.


Alan Cockeram: I am not worried about that. [DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: They are not the price that will be paid. The price will be the amount of the lowest tender. Let me say two things to him. The first is that apparently most of these works were delayed on account of the scarcity of building material, and, in the second place, :t does not exist to such a degree this year as ast year.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item :arry?


Alan Cockeram: No.


William Henry Golding: The hon.
gentleman says "no". He is only one. I asked the committee: shall this vote carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Henry Golding: Carried. Shall I report the resolution?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 24,1947