Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday evening the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) attempted in committee of the whole to raise a question of privilege with regard to the inscription on the large bell of a carillon being installed at Niagara Falls by the Niagara Falls bridge commission. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) referred, and the press has also referred, to the statement that three ministers of the crown were involved.
1 was one of the ministers concerned, and I have no apology to make for what I have done. The inscription on the bell came to the attention of the federal government as a result of an application by the secretary of the Niagara Falls bridge commission for remission of customs duty on the bells, which were cast in England. The inscription is headed with the name "Churchill" in capitals. The name is followed by a verse which I shall not read. Then come the words:
To God's glory and in grateful memory of our nation's leaders, Winston Spencer Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Hon, members will note the expression "our nation's leaders". Remember that this bell is being installed on the international boundary' between Canada and the United States, not between Britain and the United States. The purpose of the inscription at once becomes obvious. It is clearly intended as an affront
to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). Surely it is equally an affront to Canada to suggest that our country has to seek its leaders outside its own boundaries.
I did what I believe any other real Canadian would have done in the circumstances. Together with my colleagues from Ontario we drew the attention of two of the Canadian members of the bridge commission to the impropriety' of such an inscription in Canada. The members of the commission in question were Mr. A. J. Haines, the chairman, and Mr. Ross Harstone. I have here a statement from the chairman of the commission as to what followed. Mr. Haines' statement reads:
Mr. Harstone and I were both extremely indignant on learning of the inscription which had been placed on the great bell of the carillon. The inscription in question had been placed there apparently on the sole responsibility of Mr. T. B. McQueston, who, at the time the bells were ordered, was chairman of the commission. The inscription had never been submitted to, much less approved by, the other commissioners.
Our first action was to seek technical advice as to the possibility of removing the inscription without harming the tone of the bell. We learned that this would be possible. I then called a meeting of the commission which was held on Wednesday, June 11, at which it was decided to have all the names removed from the inscription, so that the inscription would read, "To God's glory and in grateful memory of our nation's leaders."
In making this change, no disrespect to anyone is intended and none is involved. Indeed the purpose is to remove disrespect.
Mr. McQueston's statement regarding the technical difficulties and cost of removing th_ names is completely inaccurate. It is surely most unbecoming in one who acted arbitrarily, and without the authority of his colleagues on the commission, in placing the inscription on the bell, to misrepresent the action of the majority of the commission when they are seeking to repair his error.
It will be clear from this statement by Mr. Haines that no pressure was required from federal ministers or anyone else. Once the members of the commission knew the facts, the majority, both of Americans and Canadians, were eager to remove this affront to the Prime Minister of Canada, as well as to other leaders in Canada's war effort, and to Canada as a nation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) presented the seventh report of the standing committee on external affairs.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Mr. BRADETTE moved:: That the fifth and sixth reports of the standing committee on external affairs, presented to the house on Friday, June 13 last, be now concurred in.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get more information from the chairman of this committee about these reports five and six, which were presented last Friday. They were in Votes and Proceedings, and they had to do with the atomic bomb and the UNO farce. Now we have another report being presented today. The foreign affairs matters on May 23 and on the order paper today have not been considered at all. I should like to ask the chairman to postpone the motion for concurrence in these reports because they deal with matters of importance and some hon. members are away, including the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I think the motion should stand because the government should take up all these questions of dissolution of the empire and decide them. The committee forgot all about these main questions; they have ignored them altogether. The committee has not been fulfilling the functions for which it was appointed. It ought to be discharged at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['That items 41 to 56 both inclusive of the estimates for 1947-48, approved and reported on by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred to the committee of supply.']
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items 41 to 56 both inclusive of the estimates for 1947-48, approved and reported on by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 294. to incorporate Commonwealth Insurance Company.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Rose Nemerofsky Silverstein- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of James Albert Carruthers. otherwise known as James Albert-Fell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Ronald Edwin George.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Margaret Lena Bertha Dasen Scheffer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 299. for the relief of Ethel Mary McKenzie Cramp.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Evelyn Alice Howard Smart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Mary Margaret Tibbins Gogo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Alfred Nelson Nickle.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 303. for the relief of Arthur Haigh McGill.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Clinton Leslie Dobson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Bernard Stanley Bailey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 306. for the relief of Archie William Young.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Olive Lever Sanborn Lead.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 308. for the relief of John Mackie. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Isabel Mercer Lebceuf.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Lazarus.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Mary Margaret Bernice Walker Kennedy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Gertie Rabin Bard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Ruth Morrison Henderson Sidders.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Philip Berger. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Harold Swann. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Margaret Isabelle Curry.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Rosamond Edith Bean Crease.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Alma Mary Hanway Eccles.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Alberta Dorothy Olson Colby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Clair Reginald McLaughlin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Eugene Klein. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Daniel Hudson. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Eileen Edna Paget Bray Dundas.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Jessie Goodis Markis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Julia Luella Audrey Cleroux Babbage.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Mile Kristo Yoja, otherwise known as Stanley Vadic.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Anthony Wavroch.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Mary Magee Glasheen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Mary Ann Clorenda Archer Richardson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Gladys May Kay Oliver.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Henry Thomas Matthews.-Mr. Maybank.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Ivy Stapleton Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of John William Sydney Jordan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill.No. 334, for the relief of Pamela Mary Gottschalk Muckell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Winnifred Doris Cleaver Wooley.-Mr. Maybank.

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

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Does the national film board employ inspectors, or field men, whose duty it is to check on film councils throughout Canada?
2.	If so, what are the names of these men, or women ?
3.	What salary does each of these employees receive ?
4.	What was the total travelling and other expenses allowed to each of these employees during the year 1946?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4. See Answer to No. 1.
LOSS OF S.S. "emperor"


Thomas Langton Church: What is the nature of the inquiry being held by the government into the disaster of the S.S. Emperor, thirty-five miles south of Port Arthur on Thursday morning last?


Lionel Chevrier: A preliminary inquiry, under the provisions of section 548 of the Canada Shipping Act, was held on June 6th by Captain W. N. Morrison, supervising examiner of masters and mates, Toronto, Ontario. As a result of this inquiry, a formal investigation, under the provisions of section 551 of the said act, will be held at an early date.


LIFE SAVING STATIONS
Thomas Langton Church: hat life saving stations has the government on the following lakes:	Lake Ontario. Lake
Huron, Georgian bay, Lake Superior, and adjacent waters; where are they located and what life saving equipment have these stations, if any?


Lionel Chevrier: None at present. As pointed out in an answer to another question tabled today, life saving stations were previously maintained during the navigation seasons at points on the great lakes but, due to the small volume of service they were called upon to render, they were abolished, the last to be maintained being Point Pelee, Ontario, which was not reopened after the 1940 season of navigation.


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the government contribute anything towards the life saving station at Toronto?
What sum of money has been spent during 1947 on life saving on the inland waterways of Canada, and where?
3.	Who is responsible for this work?
4.	Are all Canadian registered ships required to have radio equipment on board?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No. The life saving equipment in use at Toronto is maintained by the Toronto harbour commissioners.
2.	No actual life saving stations are operated on the great lakes at present, but as pointed out in an answer to another question tabled today the department does maintain and operate on the great lakes, between Kingston and the Canadian-U.S. border near Fort William, 426 light stations, fog alarm plants and light and signal buoys as well as approximately 1,100 unlighted buoys, beacons, etc. In addition government vessels are available on short notice to render assistance to vessels in distress in their immediate vicinity.
3.	The Department of Transport has no knowledge of any- formal responsibility existing with regard to life saving facilities other than those required to be provided under the Canada Shipping Act.
4.	No, not all.


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done since 1928 to provide adequate life saving stations and appliances and equipment on the Great Lakes, and how many sailors were lost there in the fall season of 1927?
2.	What action has been taken to prevent merchant ships operating without adequate aids to navigation?
3.	What agencies have afforded aid to Canadian ships in distress on the Great Lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	Life saving stations were previously maintained during navigation seasons at points on the great lakes but, due to the small volume of services they were called upon to render, they were abolished, the last to be maintained being Point Pelee, Ontario, which was not reopened after the 1940 season of navigation.
According to departmental records, 22 lives were lost as the result of shipping casualties reported on the lakes during 1927-20 in the founding of the S.S. Kamloops, and 2 in the stranding of the S.S. Lambton, on December 4 and 9, 1927, respectively.
2.	(a) (i) The life saving appliances and equipment required to be carried in ships operating on the great lakes are specified in the regulations respecting life saving appliances made under authoritv nf paragraph (b)

Questions
of section 405 of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, as approved by order in council P.C. 3 of the 6th day of January, 1937.
(ii) All merchant ships operating on the great lakes are required by the terms of section 387 of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, to have the hull and equipment inspected by the steamship inspectors at least once a year, and inspectors are required to ascertain that the ships are equipped with all equipment necessary for safe navigation, and certificates of inspection are not issued until this equipment is on board.
(b)	There are on the great lakes between Kingston and the Canadian-U.S. border near Fort William, 426 lightstations, fog alarm plants and light and signal buoys and in addition thereto there are approximately 1,100 unlighted buoys, beacons, etc. Also, there are seven ship-to-shore radio telegraph and telephone stations to provide constant 24-hour communication with ships on all the great lakes. These stations regularly broadcast weather forecasts, storm warnings and notices of dangers to navigation. There are also fifteen automatic radio beacons from which ships take their bearings by radio.
3.	Salvage companies, Canadian government vessels and U.S. government vessels.


ROWELL-SIROIS COMMISSION-LEGAL ADVISERS
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Did the Rowell-Sirois commission have any legal advisers?
2.	If so, what are their names ?
3.	What were the conditions of employment of the said legal advisers?
4.	How long was each one employed?
5.	What amount did each one receive for his fees and other expenses?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 
PASSPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: Why, since when, and in virtue of what authority is an application for a passport considered as a confidential document?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The application for a passport contains statements of a personal nature which are made by the applicant to the department in order to obtain a passport. It
is considered that these statements are made in confidence and are privileged. The information contained in a passport application might, howver, be revealed if there were an overriding public interest in the particular instance. Likewise, information would be divulged to an appropriate inquirer if the person who had made the application has given his consent, or if the circumstances are such that it may be assumed that he would wish to have the particular information revealed to the inquirer, e.g., giving information to the executor of an estate in order that the date of birth of the deceased person may be established for the purpose of payments of life insurance.
It would appear from the records of the department that applications for passports have at all times been considered to be confidential documents.
The issuance of passports is an exercise of the royal prerogative. There is no statutory authority for the issuance of passports in Canada, although there are several orders in council with respect to such matters as the fees to be charged for the issuance and renewal of passports. The royal prerogative is exercised through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who decides whether information contained in applications for passports shall be made public.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-FILMS ON HEALTH EDUCATION SUBJECTS
Mr. GOLDING:: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare propose to produce any films on health education subjects?
2.	What films, if any, are now in production?
3.	What films have been produced in the last year ?
4.	Who produces such films and what is the cost?
5.	Have any of these films been produced for commercial distribution?
6.	Does the department produce films in both English and French?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) A five-reel film in technicolor on pre-natal and post-natal care for the child and maternal health division.
(b)	A two-reel film on restaurant sanitation for the health branch.
(c)	A two-reel film on recreation and physical fitness for the physical fitness division.
(d)	A one-reel film on rodent control for the health branch.
(e)	A one-reel animated cartoon film on nutrition and diet for the nutrition division.
(f)	A two-reel film on oral hygiene for the dental health division.
Questions

(g)	A two-reel film on rural sanitation for the health branch.
3.	(a) A two-reel film entitled "Your morning milk", stressing need for pasteurization, for the public health engineering division.
(b)	A one-reel film entitled "What's on. your mind" (cost shared with the national film board).
(c)	A one-reel film entitled "Small Fry".
(d)	A two-reel film on water purification entitled "Let's Look at Water" for the health engineering division.
(e)	A two-reel film for professional group therapy use entitled "Mental Mechanisms- the Feeling of Rejection, its Development and Growth", produced for the mental health division.
(f)	A three-reel film dealing with occupational therapy entitled "Condition Improved" made in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the cost shared by two departments.
(g)	French version of a one-reel film for the Victorian Order of Nurses.
(h)	A one-reel film entitled "Know Your Baby".
4.	All the above films, except 3 (h), were produced by or through the national film board. "Know Your Baby" was purchased after completion by Crawley Films Limited, Ottawa. Costs range from $5,000 to $46,000, depending on the length, subject matter, amount of synchronized sound necessary and other considerations.
5.	Yes, 3 (b) and 3 (c).
6.	Yes.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-LEGISLATIVE MEASURES WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PROVINCES
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	Does the Department of National Health
and Welfare administer any legislative measures the operation of which depends on an equal or partial contribution from the provinces?
2.	If so, what are such measures?
3.	Was the province of Quebec asked to contribute to each one of them? If so, to which measures did the said province agree or refuse to agree?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The National Physical Fitness Act; the Ola Age Pensions Act.
3.	The same offer was made to the province of Quebec, in the terms of the legislation on the statute books, as was made to all the other provinces. In 1936 the province of Quebec took advantage of the offer contained in the Old Age Pensions Act. Up to the present time the province of Quebec has not taken advantage of the offer contained in the National Physical Fitness Act.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-ONE PER CENT DEDUCTION FROM GRAIN TICKETS
Mr. WINKLER:: ,
1.	By provinces, how much has been paid out under P.F.A.A. since its inception until January 1, 1947, or any convenient date this year?
2.	As above, by provinces, how much has been contributed to the P.F.A.A. through 1 per cent deductions from grain tickets by the Canadian wheat board and/or any marketing agencies.


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Amount of awards paid under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to March 31, 1947: Manitoba, $1,720,474.13; Saskatchewan, $54,188,578.69; Alberta, $16,344,203.04.
2.	Amount collected through the 1 per cent levy to March 31, 1947: Manitoba, $4,265,918.28; Saskatchewan, $14,736,773.12; Alberta, $7,378,755.79.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-QUEBEC
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	In what year did the dominion parliament enact the Old Age Pensions Act?
2.	In what year did the province of Quebec adhere thereto?
3.	Since then, what has been the total cost of old age pensions in the province of Quebec each year ?
. [DOT]!'	h3S k?en>
each year, the share contributed by the dominion government?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	1927.
2.	1936.
3.	On account of adjustments between provinces the dominion does not publish the total expenditure of any province. A province's share of the cost of old age pensions is approximately one-third of the dominion's contributions to the province.
4.	The dominion's contributions to the province of Quebec for each fiscal year from
1936-1937 to 1946-1947 were as follows:
Fiscal	Dominion's
Year	Contribution
1936- 37	$ 2.345.107.05
1937-	38	
8.386.230.601938-	39	
7,637.019.041939-	40	
7,758,257.341940-	41	
7,199.832.611941-	42	
6.762.038.151942-	43	
7.048.885.341943-	44	
8.535,362.811944-	45	
10,386,114.681945-	46	
10,823,345.201946-	47	
11,466.940.27


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-QUEBEC
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	In what year was the Family Allowances Act enacted by the dominion parliament?

Questions
2.	Since then, what has been the amount of family allowances distributed, each year, in the province of Quebec?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	1944.
2.	July 1, 1046 (date of first payments)- March 31, 1946, S57,978.S16; April 1. 1946-March 31, 1947, $82,614,860; April 1, 1947-May 31, 1947, $14,536,695.


PENSIONS TO THE BUND
Air. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	In what year did the dominion parliament establish an act respecting pensions to the blind?
2.	In what year did the province of Quebec adhere thereto?
3.	Since then, what has been the total cost of such pensions in the province of Quebec, each year?
4.	What has been the total share of the dominion government, each year?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	1937.
2.	1937.
3.	On account of adjustments between provinces the dominion does not publish the total expenditure of any province. A province's share of the cost of pensions for blind persons is approximately one-third of the dominion's contribution.
4.	The dominion's contributions to the province of Quebec for each fiscal year from 1937-38 to 1946-47 were as follows:-
Dominion's
Fiscal Year	Contributions
1937-	38
1938-	39
1939-	40
1940-	41
1941-	42
1942-	43
1943-	44
1944-	45
1945-	46
1946-	47


S 57,028.48 263.451.54 294,276.96 336.873.46 365.525.53 379,129.29 452,061.25 530.168.53 568.427.51 605,760.62 HEALTH AND WELFARE-LEPER STATIONS
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many leper stations are operated under the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What is the annual cost of maintenance of eaqh?
4.	How many lepers are there at each station?
5.	What has been the average number of lepers at each station during the past ten years?


Air. MARTIN:: 1 and 2. At Bentinck island, B.C. a lazaretto is maintained.
At Tracadie, N.B., leper patients are housed in a separate wing of a hospital maintained by the sisterhood of the Hotel Dieu de Saint Joseph.
3.	1946-1947-Bentinck, $4,941.41; Tracadie, $8,246.60.
4.	1946-1947-Bentinck, 3; Tracadie, 7.
5.	1946-1947-Bentinck, 2-8; Tracadie, 7-5.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-LEGISLATIVE MEASURES WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PROVINCES
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	Does the Department of Labour administer any legislative measures the operation of which depends on an equal or partial contribution from the provinces?
2.	If so, what are such measures?
3.	Was the province of Quebec asked to contribute to each one of them? If so, ito which measures did the said province agree or refuse to agree?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Vocational Training Coordination Act-
(a)	Youth training agreement;
(b)	Apprenticeship training agreement;
(c)	Training of veterans' agreement;
(d)	Retraining of civilian workers' agreement;
(e)	Assistance to vocational schools' agreement.
Dominion-provincial farm labour programme, funds for which are provided under appropriation for Department of Labour for
1947-48.
3.	Vocational training coordination act-of the measures listed under (2) above, the province of Quebec has accepted the following:
(a)	Youth training agreement;
(c)	Training of veterans' agreement;
(e) Assistance to vocational schools' agreement.
Dominion-provincial farm labour programme.
(It is expected that Quebec will continue to participate in this programme in 1947). Note.-There is another act-the old technical education act which was extended in 1944 and calls for contribution by the province of Manitoba only. This is an extension of the original act under which all the provinces benefited but Manitoba is the only province with an unexpended credit balance remaining, and the act was extended to enable the province of Alanitoba to use up its credit.

Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence loaning or leasing tents to other than cadet corps this year?
2.	If so, to whom; in what quantities and if leased, at what rates?



INCOME TAX-VARIOUS CATEGORIES

Mr. NICHOLSON:: How many (a) single persons; (b) married persons, paid income taxes, what were the total income taxes paid and what were the gross incomes of 1941, 1942 and 1946, in each of the following categories: below $1,000, $1,00042,000, $2,000-$3,000, $3,000-$4,000, $4,00045,000, $5,000-$6,000, $6,00047,000, $7,00048,000, $8,00049,000, $9,000410,000, $10,000415,000, $15,000420,000, $20.000425.000, $25,000450,000, $50,0004100,000, over $100,000?


Mr. McCANN:: Return tabled.



WAR ASSETS-AEROPLANES

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	(a) How many aeroplanes have been sold by or on behalf of the government since V-E day;
(b)	what prices, per unit and in the aggregate, were realized for each different type of aeroplane; (c) how many were sold to foreign governments or their agents, and at what prices for each type of aeroplane?
2.	(a) How many aeroplanes have been disposed of by or on behalf of the government since V-E day otherwise than by sale; (b) how and where were they disposed of?
3.	(a) What quantities of aeroplane parts and fittings have been sold by or on behalf of the government since V-E day; (b) what was the aggregate sum realized?
4.	(a) What quantities of aeroplane parts and fittings have been disposed of by or on behalf of the government since V-E day and otherwise than by sale; (b) how and where were they disposed of?
5.	(a) At what price did War Assets Corporation make its most recent sale of each type of aeroplane sold; (b) at what price is it offering each type of aeroplane now in its possession?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.



PUBLIC WORKS-SAINT JOHN HARBOUR AND VICINITY

Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: 1.	What was the total amount of moneys expended by the Public Works Department in dredging operations in Saint John harbour, Courtenay bay and immediate vicinity from January 1, 1935 to December 31, 1946?
2.	What was the total expenditure in dock improvements, wharves, elevators, breakwaters, etc., in Saint John harbour, Courtenay bay and immediate vicinity from January 1, 1935 to December 31, 1946?

3.	What steps have been taken by the government with respect to new buildings, wharves, breakwaters and dredging in Saint John harbour and immediate vicinity?



WHEAT BOARD-PERSONNEL

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What are the names of all executive officers, advisory committee and employees of the Canadian wheat board?
2.	What are their duties, annual salary, travelling and living allowances for the past year?
3.	What was their previous employment or occupation and annual salary?


Mr. MacKINNON:: I am not just sure whether all the information that it would appear is being asked for here can be revealed, but I am looking into the matter and I proposed having a chat with the hon. member who has asked the question. It will call for a rather large return and I suggest that we make it an order for return now.



MCNAB'S ISLAND, N.S., DETENTION BARRACKS

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prisoners have served terms in the detention barracks at McNab's island, Nova Scotia, during the twelve months period ended 30th April, .1947?
2.	How many of those prisoners were (a) naval ratings; (b) army personnel of all ranks;
(c)	air force personnel .of all ranks?
3.	How many of these prisoners were punished by warrant during the said period?
4.	How many of the punishments were for ninety days detention or over?
5.	What is the official daily routine for prisoners undergoing detention?



HOUSING-VETERANS' LAND ACT-EAST YORK AND SCARBORO TOWNSHIPS

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the cost of repairs since January 1, 1947, to each home constructed under the Veterans' Land Act in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?
2.	Are repairs made prior to January .1, 1947, included in the cost of above homes? If not, what is the amount of such repairs?
3.	What capital or other costs in addition to repairs to above homes, since January I, 1947, have been paid or are payable or will be payable for work now being done in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?



HOUSING-VETERANS'. LAND ACT-EAST YORK AND SCARBORO TOWNSHIPS

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the total cost of each home constructed under the Veterans' Land Act in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?
2.	Who was the contractor or contractors in each of the .above areas?
3.	How many homes were built under the V.L.A. in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?

Motions jor Papers
4.	What is the present proposed sale price of each home in the same areas?
5.	What is the original price asked in each case?
6.	What was the cost per unit of project overhead and how was the same made up?
7.	Have any veterans made deposits on proposed purchases and later declined to proceed with the purchase of such holdings? If so, by whom and why were said deals not completed?
8.	Who were the government inspectors in each of the above areas and what was the term of employment and salary of each inspector?
9.	What qualifications did the inspector have to become an inspector under V.L.A.?
10.	Is the purchase price asked any veterans in excess of the cost to the government? If so, how much, and what units are affected?
11.	Does the government permit veterans to obtain half-acre plots and build homes on same under V.L.A. in East York township and Scar-boro township in the county of York?
12.	Has the government received any complaints about construction or price of homes in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?
13.	Has the government been requested for new price contracts or rental agreements by veterans in these areas?
14.	On whose advice were the locations for veterans' homes chosen?
15.	Who recommended the sites chosen in East York township and Scarboro township in the county of York?



IMMIGRATION-DISPLACED PERSONS

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Have any Canadian industries made application since January 1, 1946, to the government for permission to bring to Canada persons from the displaced persons' camps in Europe?
2.	If so (a) what are the names of such industries; (b) how many persons were asked for in each case?
3.	Have any permits been granted to such industries? If so, to whom?
4.	Have any representatives of industrialists received permits from any department of government to visit displaced persons' camps for the purpose of selecting such immigrants?
5.	If so, who are they?
6.	Have any contracts covering wages and working conditions been submitted to the government in connection with such applications?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all documents, letters, cables, orders in council and all other correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain on the statement made in the House of Commons of Great Britain on May 16 last, by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Right Hon. Mr. Bevin), namely, that Britain will withdraw her empire defences and military bases in the Mediterranean, Suez, and middle east, and other areas now considered to be the United States' responsibility, and retire to the coast of East Africa.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure the hon. member must have been misinformed as to the contents of the statement made by Mr. Bevin on the 16th of May last. The motion is so framed as to call for correspondence on the statement made in the House of Commons of Great Britain on May 16 last, by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Right Hon. Mr. Bevin, namely, that Britain will withdraw her empire defences and military bases in the Mediterranean, Suez, and middle east, and other areas now considered to be the United States' responsibility, and retire to the coast of East Africa. I have had an extract made of that portion of the Foreign Minister's statement which deals in any way with these areas. I shall be glad to hand it to the hon. member, and perhaps after seeing it he will wish to frame his motion in other language.


Thomas Langton Church: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the motion stand and that I have a conference with the minister about it. I wanted all the papers.
Motion stands.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-CORRESPONDENCE WITH T. L. POULSOM

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: For a copy of all agreements, contracts, accounts, reports and correspondence, since March, 1919, exchanged between the Soldier Settlement Board, Department of Veterans Affairs and Mr. Tom L. Poulsom, Rochfort Bridge, Alberta.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I understand that my hon. friend is to have access to all the relevant files either in my personal office or in the office of the director of the Veterans Land Act and that he wishes the motion to stand.


George Hugh Castleden: Agreed.
Motion stands.



INCOME TAX-FARMERS

Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of all regulations and directives, dealing with farmers' income tax, issued by the Department of National Revenue to the various administrative offices during the years 1939-40 to 1946-47.


James Joseph McCann: I now wish to table the regulations and directives called for by this motion.



IMMIGRATION-DISPLACED PERSONS

Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts or other documents received by any department of government from April 1, 1947 to date, from

Tax Agreements

firms, companies or other employers, relating to the bringing of persons from the displaced persons' camps for employment in Canada.



TAX AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to authorize (a) the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government of Canada, to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces to provide, subject to terms and conditions to be agreed upon, that in consideration of the said goverments agreeing not to levy income tax, corporation income tax, corporation tax or succession duties for a period of five years ending on December 31, 1951, or any lesser period ending upon the said day, the government of Canada will pay compensation to the said governments; and (b) the Minister of Finance to pay to the government of each province one-half of the income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public, of electrical energy, gas or steam in respect of income of the corporations derived from the said distribution or generation in that province during the period commencing on January 1, 1947, and ending on December 31, 1951.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I suggest to the Minister of Finance that in both paragraphs of this resolution, along with the governments of the provinces should be included the government of Yukon territoiy. The government of Yukon territory made the same agreement with the dominion government as did the provinces to give up the imposition of income tax-I am not so sure about corporation income tax or succession duties, but that could be easily ascertained. In consideration of the territory's having surrendered to the federal government its right to collect income tax for a few years, the federal government made a grant to Yukon territory in compensation. But as Yukon territory was fortunate or unfortunate enough to make considerable profits on the sale of liquor, its grants were considerably reduced.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


George Black: I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: It is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Black: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on a statement, published in the Ottawa Evening Journal of Saturday June 14, that Hollywood moving picture makers are to come to Ottawa to film the locus and persons involved1 in the recent spy investigation here. May I precede my question by saying that that incident is a blot on the history of Canada, in which it was disclosed that spies, criminals and traitors had infiltrated the public sendee of Canada, and had even come into the membership of this House of Commons, in an endeavour to injure the country. Those found guilty have been sentenced. My question is this. In view of the present tense situation in world conditions does the government consider it advisable to allow that regrettable affair to be capitalized by the makers of sensational movies for the entertainment of the public?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the question asks whether the government intends to do something that is not within the powers or the jurisdiction of the government. I certainly do not consider that it is within the domain of the Department of External Affairs to determine what pictures Hollywood interests may or may not make. If they come here and behave as orderly citizens, there is nothing I know of in our legislation which would give any department of the government the right to interfere with their conduct. It seems to be something that their own good taste or their own judgment of their own interests should determine. If the committee now sitting on human rights see fit to recommend to this house that legislation be passed to give some department of government further control over the life and activities of individuals, the house will then have to consider it; but for the time being I would be at a loss to put my finger on any text which would allow my department or any other department of government to take any action about the matter.


Mr. HOMUTH:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Has any department of government, or the government through the cabinet, given consent that any data be furnished to these moving picture makers or rights given to take pictures within

Inquiries of the Ministry
government buildings; or have any other favours been granted so that they can make this picture?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I know of no
permission given or of any permission applied for. I did see some reference to this in newspapers, but it was my impression that it was a private undertaking. If those who were carrying it out did nothing that it is not improper for any ordinary tourist to do, there would be no interference with their conduct.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask a supplementary question? Have any facilities of the mounted police or of others been placed at the disposal of these people to take this picture? If not, I think the minister is quite right in saying that it is a private undertaking and as such does not come within the province of the house.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know of any facilities having been placed at their disposal, or any application for facilities having been made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask the consent of the house for a moment in order to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister, or to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in. his capacity as house leader. It has to do with the heavy programme of work ahead of us, and the necessity of doing everything that is practicable and possible in order to get it advanced to avoid the mad rush at the end of the session.
A month ago the Prime Minister outlined to us the work that was then before us. Everyone will agree that it was a long programme. Reasonable progress has been made since then, but there is still a heavy programme of work to do. I have consulted a number of my colleagues-it has not been a wide canvass, but I think I can speak for all or nearly all of them-and if the government feels it will help to expedite the work of the session we are prepared to have morning sittings and sittings on Saturday as well.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I sent the views of our party to the Prime Minister a few days ago, and was very glad indeed to discuss it further. I suggest that some consideration be given to sitting throughout the afternoon, or, say from two to six and from seven-thirty to eleven. If I may speak for myself-I have not had an 83166-267i
opportunity to discuss this with my colleagues -I suggest that we sit from three right through to eleven, with no dinner adjournment. Most hon. members need the mornings to do some work when the committees are sitting. I do>
not know what the house will desire, but I am throwing out these suggestions for consideration.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am very glad that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has raised this question. I thank my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party for what he has just said. Both hon. gentlemen will recall that I wrote a personal letter to each of the leaders of the parties opposite on IVtay 30 last, mentioning that the government would welcome any suggestions that they might make with respect to the work of the session and its expedition. I said in my letter I would suggest that when I received their views we might meet together and discuss them. I have now received answers from all three. I should therefore like to suggest that, if five o'clock this afternoon should happen to meet the convenience of all we might meet in my office, and, in the light of what has been suggested, discuss the matter further and perhaps have something to offer to the house tomorrow in the way of concrete suggestions or general agreements. Every hon. member I know is anxious that the business should be expedited, and equally that nothing be left undone that should be done. I do believe that at a conference among all of us, particularly as the leaders have the support, I understand, of their respective followings, we should be able to announce tomorrow a programme that will help materially to expedite the business.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Since the whips have to carry out the undertaking. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would object to their accompanying the leaders.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite the contrary; all are welcome. I give them a cordial invitation now.



EMPIRE DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Some days ago I attempted to adjourn the house to discuss an urgent matter, but was not successful. That matter was contained in the notice of motion on foreign affairs which appears on the order paper today in my name. This is the ninety-first day of the session, and we have had no opportunity to discuss the empire
Inquiries of the Ministry

matters involved in this motion. Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled a part of Mr. Bevin's statement which was made in the British House of Commons on May 16, but the one I have here is May 15. I sent him a copy of that statement on May 23. Today I asked that my motion stand in order that I might discuss it with the minister. I now ask the government when are we to have this matter discussed on a supply motion.


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to have an opportunity to discuss it on the motion to go into supply.


James Horace King: The hon. member will remember that this motion was called on the order "Notices of motion for production of papers", and the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked that the motion stand to give the hon. member an opportunity to discuss the matter with the minister. That order of business has been disposed of and I do not think the hon. member is in order to discuss the motion at this time.


Thomas Langton Church: The matter is an urgent one, and I shall raise it on going into supply. I hold in my hand a copy of the British Hansard of May 15, not of May 16. As I said before, I sent this to the minister on May 23. When my motion for the production of papers came up and the minister referred to what Mr. Bevin said, I said that it could stand until I conferred with the minister. I am saying now that I should like an opportunity to discuss the matter later on going into supply.



PEACE TREATIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A press dispatch from Washington, dated June 14, indicates that there is to be a British commonwealth meeting on Japanese peace problems at Canberra, Australia, in August. Is Canada to be represented at that meeting? The article also indicates that the United States are prepared to lift the negotiation of a Japanese peace treaty out of the council of foreign ministers and submit it to an eleven-nation peace conference direct. Will the minister tell the house whether such is the case, and could we now have from him a statement of the attitude being taken by the Canadian government in respect of the Japanese peace settlement?

Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I saw the dispatch to which the hon. member refers, and the writer of the dispatch appears to have more information than the Department of External Affairs. There is under consideration a proposal for a conference of representatives of the commonwealth nations at Canberra. A suggestion had been made that that conference take place early in July. It was not possible for the government of the United Kingdom or for the government of Canada to be represented at that time. Consideration is now being given to the holding of a conference toward the end of August. If that is arranged I have no doubt that Canada will be represented at the conference.
With respect to the second part of the question, the article indicates that the United States is prepared to lift the negotiations of the Japanese peace treaty out of the council of foreign ministers and submit it to an eleven-nation peace conference direct. There has been no official announcement by the United States of any intention to do that. The hon. member knows that there is a commission known as the far eastern commission, which has been sitting in Washington for I think over a year now, dealing with many aspects of matters that will have to be disposed of for the purposes of the peace treaty. There was a suggestion recently that there would be an attempt to avoid the procedure that has given rise to a lot of criticism in connection with the European peace treaties in preparing a draft for the Japan peace settlement. The attitude being taken by the Canadian government is that it would be much more satisfactory to have the eleven nations that have been represented on the far eastern commission represented in the early stages of the preparation of the treaty, so that there might not arise those causes of controversy that have arisen in connection with the preparation of the final drafts of the other treaties.



GERMAN NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Press reports state that German scientists and technicians are to be brought to Canada where their services are to be made available to Canadian firms. This movement apparently is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he make a statement to the house with regard to the question?

Beauharnois Company


James Angus MacKinnon: Before coming into the chamber I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question. It was my idea that the matter had been fairly well covered in the press at least, and I thought an order in council dealing with it had been laid on the table. However, I shall be glad, and perhaps it would be a good thing for the record, to make a brief statement in answer to the hon. member's question.
Conditions under which the services of German scientists and technicians might be made available to Canadian industry and universities were indicated in letters forwarded this week to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and educational institutions. It was requested that the specific requirements for individual Germans should be submitted to the Department of Trade and Commerce, which has prepared form contracts in accordance with regulations of the United Kingdom governing the transfer of such nationals. For the employment of German scientists and technicians in Great Britain, a contract must be concluded between the government and the individual concerned, and between the government and the ultimate employer. This system provides for security screening, which has been approved by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The following provisions have been made:
Contracts must be signed by the German scientists or technicians before they leave Germany.
The scientists will be brought to Canada at government expense, which will be recovered from the eventual employer of the individual concerned.
Employment is for an initial period of one year, but may be renewed for a further period of one year. The government is free to return the scientists or technicians at any time.
Payment of salaries will be in accordance with scales prevailing in the United Kingdom, and salaries will be subject to ordinary taxation.
Employers will be responsible for finding suitable accommodation for the scientist or technician, but the German concerned will be required to pay for such accommodation.
Employers will be required to make monthly reports in writing to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the ability and conduct of the German employee.
The German scientist or technician will not be permitted to write articles for publication
or to give interviews to the press while under contract in Canada without the written consent of the minister.
The emploj'ee will assign to the government, or to whomsoever the minister may designate, his title to all inventions, processes or improvements for which he may be responsible during the period of his contract.
While every effort will be made to employ listed German scientists and technicians for whose services there is an actual need and for whom a request has been received by the Canadian government, no action will be taken to absorb in Canada German scientists for whom no such requirements exist.
At (he present time it does not look as if there will be more than twelve or fifteen such people seeking entry into Canada.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER GRANT OP WATER DIVERSION FROM ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 179, respecting the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
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-Grant of wrater diversion.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There is no new principle involved in this bill. It is a simple bill which seeks the confirmation of a principle already approved by this parliament. The bill seeks to obtain authority to divert from lake St. Francis, through the Beauharnois power canal, all the surplus water available, subject to prior rights of navigation, for power development.
By section 2, chapter 19, of the statutes of 1931, this parliament granted authority to the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company to divert from lake St. Francis up to but not exceeding 53,072 cubic second feet of water of the flow of the river St. Lawrence, to be returned to lake St. Louis, and in that act it was provided that any additional water which was required by Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power should be authorized by application to this parliament.
By section 1 of chapter 20 of the statutes of 1940 an additional application was made to parliament for 30,000 cubic second feet of water and that too was granted.
Beauharnois Company

The position today is that there is a great shortage of power not only in the area served by Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power but also in the province of Ontario, and this company now comes forward and asks for authority to divert such quantities of wrater of the flow of the river St. Lawrence as the governor in council may from time to time determine, up to but not exceeding all the surplus water of the flow of the said river not required for navigation. In other words, in order to save several applications being made in case additional diversion is required, Beauharnois now seeks, by means of this application, permission to divert all the surplus water available.


Mr. ADAMSON:: What does the minister mean by surplus-over the normal mean flow of the river?


Lionel Chevrier: Over and above that which has already been applied for and all that is available in order to serve the requirements of the units installed at Beauharnois Light. Heat and Power. I was going on to say, when I was asked the question, that this diversion is subject to prior rights of navigation, and the governor in council, in previous agreements as well as in orders in council which followed the approval of parliament to the diversion, set out the terms, conditions, stipulations and reservations under which the diversion would be approved. It is subject to the prior rights of navigation and is also subject to additional rights held by certain corporations, as will appear in the course of the debate. I believe that is all I have to say at this time.


Thomas Langton Church: On a question of privilege, I was in my seat ready to discuss the principle of the bill on second reading. I understood from the Speaker that I should have the first opportunity in committee, and I consented to the second reading on that understanding. I may tell the minister that the government are not going to get away with that again.
Mr. MaeNICOL: I thank the minister for his concise explanation. One thing I like about the Minister of Transport is that he always knows his subject and presents his arguments clearly. In the creation of the world the great architect of the universe, who also was a marvellous engineer, endowed what is now called Canada with vast reservoirs out of which flow many gigantic rivers. Those rivers, through their falls and rapids, have almost inexhaustible power. This bill concerns just a small portion of one of these great rivers, the St. Lawrence, particularly the portion of it which lies between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis. The distance

between those two lakes is fourteen and a half miles, and in that distance the river falls approximately 83-5 feet. This portion of the river contains three main rapids, and has a large capacity for the production of power. This bill has to do with the production of power from that water.
As the minister has said, this is the third bill which has been before the house having to do with this matter. I remember distinctly the two previous bills, one in 1931 and one in 1940. The fact is that the province of Quebec owns all the power rights in that water. By the law of this land they, owning the river bed, can have possession of all the power which can be produced in that section. The only rights which belong to this parliament are those of navigation. I shall deal with both those aspects of the bill. I am not opposing it in any way; I am for it. In fact, if I might digress for a moment, I should like to say that, when a similar bill was before the house in 1940, I recommended that they be given the full right to divert, if and when they required it all the surplus water. It seems to me that in the meantime the country has lost the opportunity to produce much more power.
The situation at the present time is this. Apart from navigation there are now two power plants on the 14i miles, one just east of Coteau at St. Timothee, and the other farther east at the Cedars. I believe that at the Cedars about 75,000 cubic feet of water per second can be taken out, if it is desired.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -making a total of 53,072 which the Beauharnois Company afterwards obtained permission from this parliament to divert out of lake St. Francis. Then in 1940 we gave them the right to divert another
30.000	second feet. It was at that time I suggested to the house that they be given all that they are asking for now, and with that I am in accord. This makes a total that Beauharnois may divert through their power canal of 83,032 cubit feet per second.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is all the water
that has so far been diverted out of the St. Lawrence through their power houses for the production of power. Out of the 83,072 cubic feet of water per second that the Beauharnois Company now diverts through its splendid canal and pours back into the river at lake St. Louis, it develops 689,000 horse-power, I believe, from thirteen units of 53,000 horsepower.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it is
650.000	horse-power.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That may be so. There may be a diversity of opinion. I was told that there were 13 units of 53,000 horse-power each. I went down to the power house and that was the information I got there. That would make
689.000	horse-power. However, that is neither here nor there.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the units are of 50,000 horse-power each.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was told that they were
53.000	horse-power each. If it is 50,000, the development would be 650,000 horse-power. For a long time I have been hoping that the Beauharnois Company would buy out the rights, if they have not already the right to do so. Since the Beauharnois Company is wholly owned by the Quebec government and operated under that hydro electric power commission to the best advantage of its people, I for a long time have been hoping that the Beauharnois Company, or its new owner, the Quebec government, would purchase the rights at the Cedars and at St. Timothee because those two together make 81,000 cubic feet per second.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that is the case. The information I have is that the Quebec Hydro expropriated Montreal Light, Heat and Power, which were the owner of the majority of the shares of Beauharnois.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. That being so, I hope they will proceed as
rapidly as possible to divert that 81,000 cubic feet per second, prevent it from going down the river, take it down through their own canal and pour it through their power house and then into lake St. Louis.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what they wish to do.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no objection to their doing it, is there?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is fine, because that would give them sufficient water to increase their production up to about 1,750,000, more or less. That is a large block of power. In fact the province of Quebec has beent thrice blessed in its very large blocks of potential and actual power energy. First, there is the great power site at Shipshaw. At present in the three plants on the Saguenay we are developing 540,000 and 300,000 and 1,200,000, or roughly 2,000,000 horse-power. I am told that when they conserve the waters of the other rivers which flow into lake St. John, in addition to the present conservation on the Peribonka river, they will be able to produce practically another million horse-power. So far as I know that would be the largest block of horse-power for electrical energy produced anywhere in the world.
In addition they have Shawinigan, which has a large volume. When they take this additional 66,000 feet per second out of the St. Lawrence river it will bring the total up to about 1,750,000 horse-power at Beauharnois.
So that I look forward to a vast expansion of business when all this power is developed and distributed. At the outlet of lake St. Francis the flow of the river is 230,000 cubic feet per second, or thereabouts, depending of course on the flow from higher up in the lakes. In that flow at lake St. Francis there are 5,200 cubic feet per second of water diverted out of the Albany river watershed in Ontario, which, if it followed its natural course, would flow into James bay. However, because of an agreement made some years ago it now flows into lake Superior and down through the St. Lawrence basin. It flows through lake St. Francis.
I have said several times that the fact that approximately 40,000 horse-power can be developed at Beauharnois out of that 5,200 feet which comes from the Albany river watershed is perhaps one of the reasons Quebec has been so generous to Ontario in the matter of power. I wish to thank Quebec for its generosity to Ontario in this respect. I believe they are now selling us 250,000 horse-power out of Beauharnois; is that correct?
Beauhamois Company


Lionel Chevrier: About half of the
development from the Beauharnois power plant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be about
325.000	horse-power.


Lionel Chevrier: It is going to Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is good. At the same time they are giving-and I do not mean that they are giving it for nothing; we are buying it, and rightly so-but I believe we are buying about another 450,000 horse-power from the two leading large rivers which flow into the Ottawa just north of here.
So that Ontario has every reason to be grateful for what Quebec has allowed us to take out of her power production. I hope they will continue that policy when all the river is diverted through Beauharnois. After all, the watershed behind lake St. Francis is about 230,000 square miles, of which roughly
115.000	are in the United States, and the other
115.000	are in Ontario. In reality one-half of all the water which will flow through Beauharnois will come from Ontario, so it is quite right that Quebec, in her generosity, should let us buy from that power.
I am not going to go much further in the matter. I have a warm feeling for the minister, because he looks into these matters much more than most ministers do. I am not praising him unduly in that regard, but I like the way he makes a study of the work of his department. I suggest that he have a survey made of this watershed, not by a commission, but by his own engineers. The department has most excellent engineers; there are no better to be found anywhere. If they make a survey of the whole watershed perhaps they will be able to give us some good advice. At the present time the watershed is losing some water-not much, it is true. I believe about 3,500 cubic feet per second are taken out at Chicago. They require about 1,500 cubic feet per second for domestic purposes, and they take out about 2,000 cubic feet per second for sewage purposes, street flushing and the like. That is not a great amount of water, and I do not believe it can be reduced.
At Niagara Falls all the water that is diverted at that point flows back into the watershed. I believe even that which goes into the Erie canal flows back through the Lalceport or Erie canal into lake Ontario. So we are not losing anything there. The same applies to the Welland canal. What goes through by DeCew falls through our own power plant goes back into the watershed or into the course of the river. I believe a little water-not very much; perhaps not enough to bother about-is taken out through one or [Mr. McNicol.l
two rivers in Ohio for canal purposes. Then there is a little bit taken out and poured into the headwaters of the Allegheny river. However, all those losses are small. The whole watershed in my judgment has been pretty well safeguarded.
I hope the minister will consider these points. I thought I should mention them in case he is not familiar with them. Of course I am familiar with them, having covered all those areas, having seen them with my own eyes and having noted where these diversions take place.
There have been really only two diversions; I mentioned them a minute ago. I should have said they are from the one watershed, the Albany river watershed. The Kenogami river pours 1,200 cubic feet per second into lake Superior, and through the Nipigon river pours 4,000 cubic feet per second of Ogaki river water into lake Superior. There is a total of 5,200 cubic feet per second from the Albany river watershed. When those diversions came up some years ago I said I hoped that the diversion of 5,200 cubic feet of water per second, which is the equivalent of 500 million tons of water per year, up over a height of land into another watershed, would not upset the whole normal flow of water, and the return of that water in clouds to where the water came from. I am not at all sure that it has not done so. I do not believe anyone can prove that it has or it has not. I have given it most exhaustive study, and the fact is that the great lakes levels have seldom before been as high as they are now. The water today, we are told, is higher in lake Ontario than it has been in seventy years. Toronto island and the cottages all along the lake shore are being severely damaged.
This condition applies all the w'ay up lake Erie. City engineers and other engineers in western Ontario, who have known about my interest in water diversion, have communicated with me about what I said before in the matter, when I pointed out that perhaps at some other time the people living along the shores of the great lakes would have a legal right to sue the governments of the United States and Canada for the destruction of their property through the rising of lake levels on account of this diversion. I do not know, of course, whether the people have that right.
It is a question whether 500 million tons a year poured from one watershed into another might not cause the damage that is being caused today. Certainly there is some cause for it. Perhaps the minister, who I know is interested, might look into that phase of it.

Beauharnois Company
This matter of the flow of air and water is a most interesting study. The diversion of water out of one watershed into another upsets and alters the handiwork' of Divine Providence. Maybe it makes no difference, and maybe it does. That may be the reason for the very heavy precipitation of recent weeks, and may be responsible for the general tendency along this line this year and in previous years. If we could have it in the west rather than in the east it would be beneficial all the way through.
I shall close by asking the minister a few questions. He need not answer now; he may answer when he gets time. We are deciding to allow the Beauharnois Company, or the Quebec power commission, as it is now, to divert all the surplus water beyond what will be used for navigation. That is what it means. As to navigation in the Soulanges canal, I would point out that the Welland and Erie canals take about 3,000 cubic feet per second, but I doubt if the Soulanges canal will take more than 1,000, if that much. If it does not take more than 1,000 cubic feet per second throughout the whole year-the navigation season lasts only eight or nine months-in fact it is immaterial whether it is 1,000 or 2,000 cubic feet, but even if we say that 5,000 cubic feet per second are required, that would leave an average volume of 225,000 cubic feet per second. Through this bill the Beauharnois project is to take the whole of that out. That will mean that not even a rowboat will be able to go down the river from lake St. Francis to lake St. Louis. I do not know whether that is of any importance, because with the Beauharnois canal completed they could go that way and would have a straighter line to sail and through deep water. They would not need to bother going through the five locks there are now in the fourteen and a half mile Soulanges canal between lake St. Louis and lake St. Francis. I just want to see whether the minister and his officers have made sure that at no time will the river bed itself be used for navigation from lake St, Francis to lake St. Louis. That is question No. 1.
Has the United States any rights? In reading up the whole question of diversion from the St. Lawrence I found that just a few years ago the President of the United States appointed a commission with instruction to ascertain the best routes of navigation from the great lakes to the ocean as far as the United States was concerned. That commission was given five references to inquire into, one being the possibility of diverting from lake St. Francis across Quebec and New York to lake Champlain, a distance of about 52 miles, during the course 83166-268
of which the canal would drop about 53 feet. My opinion is that that could not be done, but if it could be done I think it is worth while for the minister to know about it. I am sure he does know about it. The 5,000 feet per second which might be taken at any future time would then reduce our power production at Beauharnois by roughly 40,000 horse-power. I do not think we need worry about that, but it is worth mentioning.
I do hope that the Quebec government will continue to be generous and allow the Ontario government through the Ontario hydro-I believe they are very friendly-to purchase on the present basis one-half of the full production at Beauharnois. We need power very much in eastern Ontario.
I could not find the passage in Hansard, but I remember asking when the 1940 bill went through if diversion works were to be built at the head of the river. I presume they will now be right at the head of the river. Will these be built by the Quebec power commission? The answer to my question at that time was yes.


Lionel Chevrier: They are built already.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will have to build new ones at the head of the river when they take all the water. There will be no water going down to the power plants at St. Timothee and Cedars. I imagine they will have to have gigantic works right across the head of the river if and when the time comes to proceed with the construction of the St. Lawrence ship canal. That should be in due course.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We were all interested in what the President of the United States said a few days ago. I believe the answers given me in 1931 or 1940 were that any navigation works that were built would be built by the Beauharnois Company. They would have to deepen the 3,000 foot channel to 27 feet, and make locks at Meloeheville where the ships go down to lake St. Louis. I should like the minister to reassure us that that will be done, because we are now giving all the water to the commission.
When the minister gets the time I hope that he will have a survey made into the wonderful possibilities of power production along the whole 1,800 miles of this river. In my judgment there is nothing that we can do that wmuld provide as great a return in jobs as to develop these possibilities. First, there is the work entailed in building the canal. Second, there is the building of transmission lines and so on. Third, there are the hundreds of thousands

Beauharnois Company

of jobs that would be provided in factories all across Canada. There is nothing in the world that will encourage production in a plant to the extent that cheap power will. I would ask the minister to extend his survey in an effort to find some way whereby the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan may enter the cheap power field. These provinces are badly handicapped by lack of cheap power. There is no hope of their greatly expanding their manufacturing potentialities, as we all would like to see them expanded, without cheap power. That would help everywhere in Canada. I ask the minister to see what his officials can do toward providing cheap power for the maritimes and Saskatchewan.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee only a few minutes in connection with this bill. Unfortunately there are only three more than a quorum present to discuss one of the most important matters on the North American continent, namely, the St. Lawrence waterway and the cheap light and power movement. I have been a pioneer in connection with this bill. I have tried to prevent the stealing of power by private ownership all over the great lakes. The foundation for this particular company was laid in 1927 when two or three bills were introduced.
I am opposed to the method and manner of bringing up this matter. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was passed shortly after confederation to preserve water powers, inteprovincial and international, on the great system of inland waterways which we have in this country. That act was always under the administration of the Minister of Public Works, but it has been transferred. We find that this bill was introduced in the senate. There are only nine government members present today, six Conservatives, five C.C.F., two Social Credit and one Independent. This is one of the matters which in 1929-30 brought the Liberal party into the valley of humiliation, as it was called then. An investigation into the Beauharnois deals was made afterward by the Bennett administration. I had been a pioneer in the cheap light and power movement in Ontario and strongly opposed the original Beauharnois Company and the methods they used to put this over. My opposition to it drove me out of parliament. These people had all along opposed the cheap light and power movement.
You have to follow certain principles with a matter such as this. Why was this bill introduced in the senate? Why is the Navigable Waters Protection Act violated? After all is said and done, this bill was introduced into the senate, not as a government bill but as a private bill, and the speakers were all private

members. After the first Beauharnois scandal some of them had to resign, but I do not want to refer to names. There was a long investigation into it and a change was made after the general election of 1930.
I object to this bill for the following reasons: First, on account of the danger to navigation. Second, it is proposed by the great leader of our great ally who visited us the other day that construction of the St. Lawrence seaway be begun at once. We have to consider the Chicago diversion of waters in connection with the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. Hon. members will have noticed in the press and in the congressional reports that there are interests which want a second rival canal to the St. Lawrence seaway, using the Mississippi river. Where are we going to be with the St. Lawrence seaway then? There are cycles of high and low water in the great lakes system in this country, and where shall we be with a rival canal in existence. Navigation will be nowhere. Yet navigation is paramount. You cannot take a bucket of water out of the boundary streams if it affects or injures navigation. Water can only be taken out to develop light and power if it is not necessary for navigation.
I object to the principle of this bill. The explanatory notes say that the Beauharnois Company got a charter and constructed the canal and * the works connected with it, and then by chapter 19 of the statutes of 1931 the company was granted the right to divert from lake St. Francis 53,072 cubic second feet of water of the flow of the river St. Lawrence, to be returned to lake St. Louis and to be used for the development of hydro electric power on certain terms and conditions set out in P.C. 504 of March 1, 1932.
Then by chapter 20 of the statutes of 1940 the company was granted the right to divert an additional 30,000 cubic second feet of water from lake St. Francis on terms and conditions set out in P.C. 3210 of July 18, 1940.
The Beauharnois canal and works constructed and designed in accordance with approved plans permit of the development and use of an additional quantity of water for power purposes.
The Beauharnois Light, Heat and Powrer company is now owned by the Quebec Hydro Electric Commission, which also owns Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated and Provincial Light, Heat and Power Company. These two last named companies enjoy power rights on the river St. Lawrence between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis.

Beauharnois Company
The explanatory notes go on to refer to the demand for power. Yet they are exporting a whole lot of power now. They were allowed to export a certain amount of power during the war to certain munitions manufacturing plants. Are they to be allowed to continue to export power when this country needs power and will need it for many years to come for industrial development in the two central provinces?
The explanatory notes say that the purpose of the bill is to obtain from parliament its approval of the further diversion by the Beauharnois company of such additional quantities of water of the flow of the river St. Lawrence as the governor in council may authorize.
I am opposed to the principle of this bill, which parliament should not pass unless the two central provinces are consulted and consent to it, and even then we should safeguard navigation rights, which are paramount. The Navigable Waters Protection Act is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works, and I see no reason for transferring that jurisdiction without a hearing before the minister and before the railway committee of this house.
We are going to have a rival seaway, as I have already pointed out; are we going to allow this company to export power that is badly needed in Canada by the two central provinces?
I object to the principle of this bill on the ground that it would be adopting a different type of rival seaway through the Mississippi valley. We may not be able to carry out the St. Lawrence seaway project if this diversion goes through, particularly as Chicago is diverting more water for canals and municipal purposes every year, and there is no proper check being made at the present time of that diversion of water. We used to have a debate in this house lasting for three or four days on the Chicago diversion of water, but now there is no reference to it. That diversion should be checked up, especially as we have cycles of a heavy flow of water followed by a scarcity of water on the great lakes system.
Interests in the United States want a rival canal to the St. Lawrence seaway extending right down the Mississippi to the gulf, and they are going to get away with it. There is nobody to stop them. Chicago is getting away with more water than the treaty calls for, and they will do the same thing with the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi seaway; and then where are we going to be? Future generations will pay for this misuse of the water powers of this country. There is nobody 83166-2684
here to stop them now. In the old days when the Conservatives were in power in Toronto our benches here were full. We had 127 members but today we have only five or six listening to this debate. We were the original pioneers in Ontario of public ownership, with cheap light and power for the people.
I believe that this bill should be laid over for a year. There is no demand now for this extra water. The bill should stand over until we know more about the St. Lawrence seaway. It should go first to the railway committee. I can tell you this, that if this bill goes through, it may prove to be the death knell of the whole St. Lawrence seaway proposition. There are shipping interests in this country that do not want the St. Lawrence seaway. They are opposed to it. The ports of Montreal and Quebec have been developed by a large expenditure of money and this great inland waterway should be extended right up to the head of the lakes. Providence blessed us with this great inland water system. You can go up the Amazon river for a thousand miles. If this bill goes through the way it is you can just fold your arms so far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned. I warn the house and the country of the danger. The people today are blindfolded. They do not know what is going on, in local affairs, foreign affairs or anything else. But they will soon wake up to the fact that they have been blindfolded and they will be blindfolded and fooled no more. This is a very dangerous bill for the province of Ontario, if it is passed without all due safeguards. Let us wait until we have all the information about the St. Lawrence seaway. The Beauharnois Company was a private company but eventually it is to be a Quebec public ownership enterprise. This seaway business may become a racket unless the necessary safeguards are provided. History always repeats itself in light, power and transportation. Cheap light and power did great things for our province. We could not have had our great industrial development without it. But those who proposed it and brought it forward were ridiculed and blackguarded, but public ownership in Ontario has succeeded and proved a gold mine. I hope the same thing will be true in the province of Quebec.
I have concluded about all that I have to say because I have dealt with the principles of the bill. The next time this bill is up for discussion I do hope that we shall have a larger attendance from Ontario, anyway. I do not know where we would be if we did not have some of these great national policies which the Conservative party launched and
Beauharnois Company

made a success of in that province, including its support of the St. Lawrence waterway.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: On previous occasions when the matter of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company has been before the house the proposals have met with strong opposition from the members of this group. Since then, however, a change has occurred. This is now a publicly owned enterprise which, of course, puts a different complexion on it from our point of view. Whether one accepts the general proposition for public enterprise and cooperative enterprise, as perhaps we do to a greater extent than most hon. members of other parties in the house, all parties agree that electric power development is something which in its very nature must be a public enterprise. I am glad to know that since we discussed this matter in 1940 the ownership of this organization and of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company has passed into the hands of the government of the province of Quebec. From the point of view which I wish to express that is a very useful thing.
The statements which the hon. member for Broadview made are serious and should be given careful consideration by the government. As I understand the proposition-and if I am wrong I want the minister to correct me, because I want to be quite sure in supporting this bill-the water we are dealing with in this bill is surplus water, and the country is adequately protected so far as navigation is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no question
about either of these two things.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: There is no question
about that from the point of view of the advisers of the department, who are competent engineers, and we must therefore take the advice they give us that the country is adequately protected in that regard. I understand that when the St. Lawrence waterway is built, as I hope it will be, the Beauharnois canal will form a part of the whole plan.


Lionel Chevrier: It does.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: In laying out the canal originally the St. Lawrence waterway project was protected in the minds of those who designed the canal. I understand that the depth will be sufficient to take ships up to 27 feet draught.


Lionel Chevrier: The depth will be 27 feet throughout from the head of the lakes to the ocean.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That, I understand, is the proposal generally for the whole waterway project, as I have read it and studied it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; and the power
canal has been worked into the whole scheme.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The power canal will form a part of the whole St. Lawrence waterway scheme?	.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: If we are satisfied on that point, in view of the present shortage of power the government of the province of Quebec through its power commission should be given the right to use the surplus water so long as the navigation rights of the dominion are adequately protected. I hope this project will be beneficial to the province of Quebec and that the people will derive from it the benefit that one would hope should accrue from an undertaking of this description.
I may add that when we hear it stated that there is a power shortage in Quebec we are reminded that we were told during, the war that much of the new power developed in Quebec could not be utilized in peace time. We now find it necessary to divert another
30,000	cubic second feet from the river. Including the 30,000 that were diverted in 1940, that makes a total of 60,000 cubic feet over and above the 53,000 cubic feet which it is necessary to divert on account of the shortage of power. This is very interesting to those who were told during the, war that much of the power development that had taken place in Quebec could not be utilized after the war was over.
May I join the hon. member for Davenport, without going into the matter as he did, in expressing the hope that the minister and the federal government will do everything in their power to facilitate the building of power projects in, the navigable streams, on, of course- from my point of view-a publicly owned basis, so that we may provide electric power for parts of the country to which up to the present it has not been made available.
As I say, the change of ownership from the private corporation to the province of Quebec makes a very great deal of difference from my point of view. In 1940 I objected to the diversion of 30,000 cubic feet per second to the Beauharnois corporation.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The same people use it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Yes, but it is not the use of the thing that matters; it is who owns it, to whom the benefit of the ownership accrues. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend, who is so deeply imbedded in a sort of prehistoric philosophy that it is not worth arguing about.

Beauharnois Company
Mr. CHEVRIER; I am not going to get into the argument.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not blame the minister for not getting into the argument. At least this bill is on the right side of the argument, and therefore I am supporting it.


Mr. IRVINE:: Before the bill passes I wish to say one word. I am not opposing the legislation,, and I am in entire agreement with what has been said by my leader, but I should like to ask this question. How is it known that the required water for navigation has been safeguarded? For instance, you may have ships now that have a draught of 30 feet. Five years from now they may have a draught of 36 feet. How do you know that you are going to preserve navigation?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can answer that question. In the first place the department provides checks. At the power house at Beauharnois there are engineers who measure the flow once a week, and our own department officials measure it every month. We also maintain at Coteau water level gauges, as we do at Iroquois and at Cornwall, and we know the level of the water every day. The officers read the reports, and also the reports of the water taken by the Beauharnois company or by the Quebec hydro commission, and by means of comparing these two levels are able to see immediately whether they are taking more water than is required. That is one way. There are several other checks. For instance, under agreements which will be drawn, up between the government and the Beauharnois company it will be stipulated upon what terms and conditions this water may be taken. If these terms and conditions are not complied with, penalties are provided.


William Irvine: After we have granted the right to divert the water, and, the diversion has taken place, suppose subsequent events should require that large ocean going ships should have much greater draught than they now have. The water has been diverted. Would not that mean that these large ships could not go up the river?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the provision today is for 27-foot navigation, and if the draught of the ships were greater in future we would have to provide for greater depth.


Mr. THATCHER:: Are there any other persons or corporations that have rights or interests and, if so, have they made representations to the minister either opposing or supporting the application?


Lionel Chevrier: There are three others and they have made no representations. They are owned by the Quebec hydro commission, with one exception, the Canadian Light and Power Company, and it diverts a very small amount of power out of the old Beauharnois canal.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Then there is no corporation which is opposed to this.


Lionel Chevrier: None. I will answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Davenport. I believe there were four. The first had to do with the position with regard to navigation. Navigation cannot use the river now between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis. The river was completely dammed in 1941 to permit a total diversion at Beauharnois of 83,072 cubic feet per second.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The water must be flowing through to feed the two power houses, one at St. Timothee and the other at Cedars.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The water flows through lake St. Francis into the Beauharnois canal. The water is dammed on the river St. Lawrence. Navigation is not carried on through the north channel of the river St. Lawrence because of this dam, but there is enough water allowed through for development at Cedars to Provincial Light and Heat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it, the water that is now used to supply the power plants at St. Timothee and at Cedars is taken in both cases out of the river itself, and it must therefore flow down the river to get there.


Lionel Chevrier: The water that is
diverted for development at Cedars is diverted out of the river St. Lawrence and there is a dam there providing for that, likewise for the water which is diverted through the old Beauharnois canal for development by Canadian Light and Power Company at St. Timothee. But the water we are discussing now is that which does not come out of the river but out of lake St. Francis down through the power canal into lake St. Louis.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This bill provides for it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. With respect to United States rights, I am informed that the United States have no rights or interest in power development at Beauharnois as long as the levels are not raised on the United States side at the head of lake St. Francis. There was a question about further diversion. No additional works are required to permit a further diversion of water. These diversion works were built in 1941; the navigation locks
Beanharnois Company

will be built and paid for by Canada when the deep waterway is eventually built, and the power company will provide a channel to the required depth. As a matter of fact, that channel is practically complete with the exception of one mile.
May I deal now with two questions asked by the hon. member for Broadview? His first question was why this bill was introduced in the senate. The answer is, because for several weeks w7e were discussing legislation on controls in the House of Commons. This bill was ready and it was thought reasonable that it should be introduced in the senate so as not to lose any time. The hon. member complained about navigation. He said that navigation would not be protected. The answer is that navigation is fully protected. If navigation were not protected the dominion government, under its former agreement and under the agreement which it will enter into with Beauharnois, will have the right to expropriate the works, so that at all times rights of navigation are fully protected under the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that the export of primary power is not a federal matter, but I would ask the minister whether steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of both Ontario and Quebec with regard to the export of primary power.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to get into a discussion on export of power. This bill has nothing to do with the export of power but only with the diversion of water from one lake to the other through the canal.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But it makes power possible.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as export of power is concerned, while that question does concern the federal authority and is one in which they authorize by licence, it is not a matter that comes within the purview of the legislation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize that, but I want to make a protest now, or to warn the government against the export of power. We are facing a frightful power shortage in industrial Ontario and industrial Quebec at the present time. This diversion of water means an increase in installation of horse-power at Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power. That power is needed in the worst way in Canada, and I want to plead with the government, in case there is any such intention, to stop this new increase of power from being exported.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the question is in order but I will answer it. The hon.

gentleman was here when I made the statement that about half of this power goes to Ontario.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: He knows how serious the shortage of power is in Ontario at the present time.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is desperate.


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the export of power, that is a matter which has been decided by this parliament. It was decided as far back as 1927 by the Electricity and Fluid Export Act when the principle was laid down by parliament as to how power should be exported. There is nothing I can add to that. I believe the principle laid down was a good one.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Half of this power will be used) in Ontario. The minister does not know how the other half will be used?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter for the Quebec hydro commission.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And they are a sovereign body.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have another question. How much increased power does this diversion entail? I do not think that question has been answered.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a difficult question to answer. It depends on the flow of water.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You have 30,000 cubic feet per second. You must know how much that means to Beauharnois.


Lionel Chevrier: It depends entirely upon the flow of the water. The flow of water varies. The minimum flow may be 146,000 c.f.s. at a certain time of the year and at another time it may be close to 350,000 c.f.s., so that the surplus amount of water cannot be told in exact terms.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This bill entails an extra
30,000	cubic feet per second.


Lionel Chevrier: No; it does not. It entails all the surplus water available subject to rights of navigation et cetera, to be taken out of lake St. Francis through the canal into lake St. Louis; and, upon the terms, conditions and stipulations laid down in the agreement which will follow this bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This takes everything.


Lionel Chevrier: It takes the surplus.

Beauharnois Company


Agar Rodney Adamson: This takes the whole works, every cubic foot of water flowing between these lakes, now going through the Beauharnois canal, except for navigation.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not take the whole works. There have already been granted by two additional acts of parliament two diversions, one of 53,071 cubic feet per second and another of 30,000 cubic feet per second'.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This takes all that is left.


Lionel Chevrier: This takes the surplus, subject to that granted other corporations.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Which is not needed for navigation.


Lionel Chevrier: This authorizes the governor in council to enter into an agreement with Beauharnois to grant it the surplus amount of water available.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One more question. Has any navigation machinery; have any locks been installed on the canal? Have the sills or anything like that been installed in the power canal? I understand that the Beauharnois people are using the power canal as part of the ship canal. It works hand in glove with the future deep waterway system. Have any installations been made?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Nothing has been done? The canal as at present constructed is suitable for ships of 27-foot draught?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Am I correct in my understanding that neither the government of Canada nor the government of the province of Quebec will have to come back to parliament for any permission to divert any water from the St. Lawrence?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This grants Beauharnois the authority, and it will not have to come back.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is what I understood. May I ask the minister, as a matter of information, exactly what is contained in the act of parliament which has to do with the export of power to the United States? Will he give me a brief explanation, because parliament will not have a chance to discuss this diversion right again?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not intend to allow myself to get into a discussion of the export of power. This bill has nothing to do with that. Although I answered the question asked by the hon. member for York West a moment ago I told him I thought it was out of order. I referred to a debate and a resolution of this
house by which the house agreed as to the principles governing the export of power, and successive governments have abided by the terms of the resolution. I propose to go no farther than that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is all the power in Quebec being used at the present time, or is some of it, because of its location, not being used?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand it is all in use.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does the Quebec government own all the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company? If it does not, what do the people who own shares in the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, now own?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the government of Quebec has expropriated the Montreal Light, Heat and Power, which was the owner of the majority of the shares of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I realize that, but there are shareholders in Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company who had nothing to do with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power. I am asking the minister what they own; because in the explanation of this bill, it is stated that the Quebec government owns the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power. They only own a controlling interest. Is that the understanding?


Lionel Chevrier: My officers inform me that they own the whole of it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to correct one statement which I think was made by the leader of the C.C.F. party during the war about the surplus power. I think he is confusing the surplus power at Shipshaw with the power that is needed in this bill.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This matter was raised on this bill, Mr. Chairman, and is pertinent to it. There is a desperate shortage of power in the industrial heart of Canada and, in my opinion, it will increase. But the development made on the Saguenay was an isolated one, for a specific purpose, hundreds of miles away from the industrial centre of Canada. That was the reason why it was thought that the power from the Shipshaw development might not be used. It was, I think, 400 miles away, and that is an extremely long distance to be covered by transmission lines.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps I can answer the hon. member for York West. It was a good question which he raised. The 40,000 horsepower is shipped to the United States but they
Railway Tax Amendment

return that to us at Niagara falls. In other words, we exchange that 40.000 horse-power there for 40,000 horse-power at Niagara falls.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 255, to amend the Railway Act.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I made a complete statement on the resolution. We are now on second reading of the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: 'I should like to make a short statement. I wish to thank the minister for having incorporated in this bill two parts of the bill introduced by myself in the last two sessions of parliament and sponsored by my silent partner, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). The sections of this bill which have to do with the abatement of noise, particularly the whistling noise at railroad crossings, deal with a matter which is a serious one for the urban areas in question. It has been, I think, completely substantiated that, in an urban area with properly protected crossings, the sound signal does not have the effect as a safety measure that it has in rural areas. I merely want to go on record as saying that I think this bill was thoroughly discussed in committee last year when I introduced a private bill, and that all the evidence possible was adduced in that committee. Speaking for the hon. member for Peel, who is absent today fulfilling the necessary democratic function of casting his vote in his own county-


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: To drink or not to drink.


Agar Rodney Adamson: and for myself, I wish to thank the minister for introducing this bill.
Motion agreed^ to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Grant for ten years from 1947.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Section 3 is, I take it, the one which covers grade crossings. I merely rise to express my complete

approval of such a fund being provided. Perhaps I am repeating myself at this time, but I should like to mention something that was mentioned last year. I believe I said at that time, and I now repeat, that level crossing accidents stand as one of our greatest scandals. Indeed, only a few weeks ago, right in my home city, three people were killed at a level crossing. These are the tj7pe of crossings to which funds such as those we are now discussing, contributed as they are by the government, the railway and the municipality, could be allocated.
I have risen simply to express my approval of the granting of this money, although I am not strongly in favour of the ten-year provision. I believe there might be occasions when the amount should be increased. Of course the only wray to do so would be by amending the statute. This, however, is only a matter of detail. I am very much in favour of spending this money.


Mr. FLEMING:: I should like to add a word to what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West. There can be no question that we have fallen far behind the requirements of the country in the matter of grade separation. The grade separation fund has not been augmented in recent years. Of course we realize that works involving grade separations had to be curtailed during the war. But now that the war is over, I suggest that we should raise our sights in the matter of construction of grade separation works.
When the minister spoke on the resolution he indicated that, in addition to this annual vote to the grade crossing fund, by means of this amendment to the Railway Act the government had in contemplation some augmentation of the fund by special grant to provide funds necessary to carry out grade separation at a number of places where surveys by the board of transport commissioners had indicated grade separation needs were well established. I should like to express the hope that there will be no delay in that respect.
The grant involved in the bill before the committee is not adequate to undertake any large-scale programme. There will have to be some further augmentation if we are to make any serious attempt to catch up with the arrears of work. The expansion of road traffic has increased the existing dangers. Along with that, as I pointed out earlier, the work of grade separation has been largely at a standstill in recent years. So that there is a substantial backlog of grade separation work now to be done. That will require augmentation of the fund.

Raihvay Act Amendment
To add to what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West, let me express the hope that the government will not lose any time in furthering this programme and augmenting the fund.
There is, perhaps, one other matter worthy of mention in this connection, and affecting amounts to be voted in respect of railway grade crossings. The point is that for a period of time it has been the tendency of the board of transport commissioners in its decisions to increase the proportion of total cost of any of these works levied against the public purse, rather than against the railways immediately affected. That is another factor which enters into the problem before us and increases the necessity for our thinking in terms of substantial augmentation of this fund to meet a great need.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say one word in connection with the remarks of hon. members who have just spoken. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the amount of money paid into the grade crossing fund. It may be thought that this is the only amount of money being provided for the elimination of grade crossings. Such is not the case and it would be unfortunate if the committee were to gain that impression. Since the grade crossing fund was established, there has been paid into the fund, not only these amounts voted at the rate of $200,000 a year, but also other additional amounts which total $11,795,000. Apart from that, there have been spent by the provinces and municipalities $15,675,000 as their share toward the elimination of grade crossings; an additional $16,-
397,000	have been paid by the railways, making a total of $43,867,000 provided for the elimination of these crossings. Then, as my hon. friend suggested a moment ago, parliament can grant a special vote for certain projects which may come to the attention of the government and receive approval.
Then, as I said on the resolution, the board of transport commissioners has been asked to make a survey of grade crossings which in the country are in such condition as to require work being undertaken at the earliest possible moment. Just where the report stands, I do not know. When it does come before the government and what action will be taken I am not in a position to say. However I hope that certain priorities may be established, and that the funds will be voted out of the appropriations of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply or, again, perhaps, out of the funds of the Department of Transport, to eliminate such dangerous crossings. So that it is not only the grade crossing fund which is directed toward the elimination of these crossings. There are other funds, as well.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is all set out in the railways report.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. While I am on my feet, perhaps I might answer one or two questions. First, the hon. member for Durham asked about the quantity of American as opposed to Canadian materials which went into signals at grade crossings and level crossings. The answer is that approximately two-thirds of all materials used in the installation of automatic signals are purchased in the United States. They are not manufactured in Canada. The duty on such materials coming from the United States is twenty-five per cent. The remaining one-third of materials is of Canadian manufacture.
Then the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario asked who carries out the work of grade separation, and whether it was done in each instance by the railways. The answer is that where grade separation involves the building of a highway bridge over the railway, if the highway authority is a provincial department or a large municipality the bridge is generally designed and built by the highway authority. All work on railway property is carried on under the supervision of the railway company. If the highway authority is a small municipality which has no adequate staff for carrying out the work, the bridge is designed and built by the railway company. Where grade separation involves the construction of a subway to carry the highway under a railroad, the subway is designed and constructed by the railway company.
Then the hon. member for Calgary West asked about the duties of the board of transport commissioners. I have gone to the trouble of getting the 1945 and 1946 reports, and obtaining from those reports the actual work of the board. It would be somewhat lengthy to place it all on Hansard; but if the hon. member insists, I can do so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps the minister would let me have it?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It is a summary of what is done, and I shall be glad to let the hon. member have it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one question with respect to a further vote based on the survey now being undertaken by the board. Is there any expectation that that report will be available this year, and that the vote will be included in this year's appropriation?


Lionel Chevrier: There is every expectation that the report will be available this year, but I cannot tell my hon. friend whether it will be available in time to be included in the supplementary estimates. I doubt very much
Railway Act Amendment

whether that would be possible, because when the report is received it must receive the approval of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. It was that department which asked the board of transport commissioners to make the survey. Therefore the engineers of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply will have to look at the report so as to ascertain which should have priority and where, perhaps because of spotty unemployment, there might be greater urgency of doing the work in one particular area than in another.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The board of transport commissioners was just invited to make recommendations as to crossings and grade separation works?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Just one matter with regard to the materials used for safety devices at level crossings. Some years ago and again last year I made representations to the Minister of Finance that the materials and equipment made by the United States company-[DOT] I just forget the name-should be admitted at a lower rate of duty or duty free. This equipment is not made in Canada, and the duty imposes an extra tax upon security and safety at level crossings.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Durham made the same representation the other evening and I shall see that it is brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Fencing approaches.
Arthur Leroy Smith: This section has to do with fences at approaches to level crossings. It reads:
Such fences or other structures as the board may by order or regulation direct shall be erected and maintained on the sides of the approaches mentioned in subsection one of this section.
The explanatory notes point out that the present subsection was introduced at a time when vehicular traffic was confined almost entirely to horse-drawn vehicles, and the reason for the suggested change is that fences as previously provided for tend to obstruct the view. I wonder if we need to change the statute. It will be remembered that a legal fence is a fence four foot high with so many wires. Will this make things safer?


Lionel Chevrier: It will. This is being inserted at the request of many provincial ministers of highways who think the old fences obstruct the view and who feel that if this were left to the board it would be safer for the public generally.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed1.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 254, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Employer-employee agreements.
Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee is entitled to an explanation as to why this bill is being brought forward at this time. The Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways have been experiencing difficulty with their collective agreements across the country. Under section 92, subsection 10, paragraph (a) of the British North America Act, this parliament has jurisdiction over railways connecting a province with any other or -others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province.
As the committee knows, the railways have entered into collective agreements covering rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment with their employees. They have run into certain difficulties, because the provinces under property and civil rights have enacted legislation having to do with the same subjects such as rates of pay, hours of work and certain other working conditions. For example, Ontario provides for one week's holidays with pay after the first year of work. Saskatchewan provides for two weeks of holidays after the first year of work. Alberta provides for one week of holidays after the first year of work and two weeks thereafter. In Saskatchewan I think there are some five provincial statutes having to do with labour matters. In Alberta there is similar legislation and also in British Columbia.
What is happening is that when the railways enter into collective agreements with their employees they are face to face with legislation which is different in each of the provinces. In other words, it is not uniform and is creating chaos. The railways simply cannot operate under these conditions. In Saskatchewan the railways were prosecuted by the provincial government for infraction of their labour acts. A stay of prosecution was

Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act
granted pending an application by the railways to the courts for clarification and for a pronouncement by the courts upon the legality of the provincial legislation. The courts decided against the legislation.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Only as far as railway employees are concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I am dealing only with railway employees. The hon. member is quite right in bringing that forward. The supreme court of Saskatchewan decided that the legislation was ultra vires in so far as railway workers are concerned. In fact the judgment goes beyond that and says that the railway agreements would cover hotel employees because they are an integral part of the system.
The collective agreements that are made with the brotherhoods are made after careful negotiation and the railways are most anxious that the legislation be uniform. After careful consideration, the government came to the conclusion that the only way to do this would be to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. The object of this bill is simply to avoid a chaotic condition across the country and' I hope that the legislation will commend itself to the committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very much in favour of this legislation for the reasons the minister has given, but I should like to ask a question or two in order that we may be sure of what we are getting. Is there some definition which defines National Railways and Pacific Railways. The section reads:
The rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment of employees, of National Railways or Pacific Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is defined in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It goes on to refer to "construction, operation or maintenance of National Railways or Pacific Railways". What does that include? In other words, does the act apply solely to the railway corporations or does it apply to any subsidiaries which they may have? Hotels were mentioned by the minister a moment ago. Let us assume that a railway company has its own trucking service, which they do have in some places. Perhaps the minister would not propose to go so far as to cover some local situation like that. In other words, does this bill include all the subsidiary businesses into which a railway might care to go? I hope it does not. I think the words are rather well chosen, "construction, operation or maintenance," but perhaps they need a bit of clarification. May I say again that I am very much in favour of the bill. I think this
is the only way the railways can operate. I also know that the railways and the men themselves on both the main lines are in favour of the measure as we have it.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I may read the definition of "National Railways" as contained in section 3 (e) of the act:
"National Railways" means the National company, as owner, operator, manager and otherwise. and its transportation, communication and hotel system, which system shall be deemed to comprise all companies which are elements of the Canadian National Railways as defined in the National Act, the respective undertakings of such companies, the National company in its capacity as owner, manager, or operator, in whole or in part, of any railways, including Canadian government railways, or of any land, water or air transportation or communication services or hotel services, and the said railways and services, their works and property, and all such works and property as are ancillary.
The same definition applies to Pacific Railways. So it- includes all that my hon. friend contemplated in his question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Our railways operate ships, for example, on both coasts and on the great lakes. They own those ships, although the name of the company may be somewhat different from that of the railway. According to what the minister has just read, the definition seems to cover everything, and I question very much if he intended this to apply to seamen, for example, who are working on the lakes or on our coasts on boats owned by the railways. I want to make sure that all the people who are to be brought under this have been consulted and are agreeable to being brought in.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the bill covers everything in the definition.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Would it include Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Lionel Chevrier: No; I am informed that is a separate corporation.


Mr. HAZEN:: As the minister has told us, and as is stated in the explanatory note, the purpose of the bill is to provide that rates of pay, hours of work and so on, shall be such as are set out in employer-employee agreements filed in the office of the Minister of Transport. The new section 27A reads:
The rates of pay, hours of work . . . shall be such as are set out in any agreements . . .
Then it says at the end:
... if such agreements are filed in the office of the Minister of Transport.
What puzzles me a little is this. I see no provision in the bill that makes it obligatory on a company to file an agreement in the office of the Minister of Transport. Possibly some section of the act which this bill is proposed
4192	COMMONS
Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act
to amend provides for that, but as I read this bill it does not state that any agreement has to be filed'.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is that if they want to take advantage of the act they will have to file the agreement.


Douglas King Hazen: That is not satisfactory, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: I would say it is.


Douglas King Hazen: Is it satisfactory to the government?


Lionel Chevrier: It is satisfactory to the government, and I am sure it will be to the brotherhoods because I agree with the hon. member for Calgary West when he said that he knew this had the approval of the brotherhoods. I have in my file a letter from the brotherhoods. While they have not all approved this, I think the majority of them have.


Douglas King Hazen: The agreement could be filed by either the company or by one of the brotherhoods?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Remember,
I am all in favour of the bill. I am only worried that perhaps we may be taking in some territory we do not intend to take in. For example, the hotel employees have their union which is quite separate from any railway union. The staff of the Chateau Laurier, for example, are in a union which covers the other hotels in Ottawa. I think the Minister of Labour will agree with me on that. Here is my difficulty. I am going to vote for this bill-let there be no doubt about that-but I do not want us to deal too hurriedly with the rights of a number of people who have not been consulted and whose interests have perhaps not been considered. I mention hotels as one thing, and I mentioned trucking as another. Certainly the railways have many interests. Let us assume that a railway has gone into the bus business, as the railways have in some places, and operates a bus line which is not interprovincial or anything of that kind. I am not just sure that we should not limit this bill to certain operating trades which have agreements that we know exist.
I am not being critical at all, but I do not think the minister wants to spread himself into perhaps dangerous territory. That is all I am trying to avoid.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman's point is well taken, and I am glad he has raised it. I have in mind definitely the question of hotels, because there is pending at the moment in British Columbia a lawsuit over

this very thing. The government of British Columbia have, I understand, no objection to this legislation, save that they say it should not be applicable to hotel employees because hotels are a matter which come under property and civil rights and should be legislated upon by the province. Mr. Justice Bigelow, in his decision in the Saskatchewan case, agreed with the minority judgment of Mr. Justice O'Halloran of British Columbia that this legislation should cover hotel employees because that was an integral part of the railway's business. That is with respect to the local aspect only.
With respect to the other aspect, I am informed that the railways, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, have consulted with all their employees, including hotel employees and express company employees, and that they are in agreement with this legislation. I am further informed that the employees' organization known as the joint negotiating committee have approved this legislation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I doubt that the hotels are represented on the joint negotiating committee. If they are I have not heard of it.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees represents the employees of the Chateau Laurier; it is a national organization, a member of the joint negotiating committee. I have not it with me, but I have seen a copy of the letter sent by this organization to the Minister of Transport, The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees joined in the request that this legislation be adopted.


Mr. McKAY:: A moment ago the minister said that certain provinces had labour legislation which seemed to be at variance. For instance, some provinces had one week's holiday with pay, and others two weeks' holiday with pay. This seems to indicate that we have great need for a national labour code to govern that sort of thing. The minister also mentioned the fact that the railway companies had consulted the brotherhood. Did the minister make any direct representation to the brotherhoods to find out their reaction to this bill?
I should like the minister to clarify another point, Since there is varying provincial legislation having to do with labour conditions, will the agreement which is mentioned in this bill vary from province to province because of the different types of legislation that are found in the different provinces which have been mentioned?

Port Alberni Harbour


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first question is that the minister made no representation to the brotherhoods. It was the other way round, if anything. The chairman of the negotiating committee, Mr. F. H. Hall, wrote to me under date of June 2, 1947. Perhaps I had better put the letter on record: The Honourable Lionel Chevrier,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Minister,-
A copy of Bill 254, "An Act to amend the Canadian Xational-Canadian Pacific Act, 4933," has just come to hand. It embodies the principles which some time ago received approval of the organizations, national and international, representing the employees on Canadian railways.
This approval was expressed in a formal motion adopted by the negotiating committee of these unions, and was conveyed to the railways. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen withheld its acquiescence pending some further consideration, and no advice has been received subsequently as to its position in the matter.
The organizations participating in the action referred to are as follows:-
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Order of Railway Conductors.
Division No. 4, Railway Employees' Department (A.F. of L.) (shop crafts).
Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Commercial Telegraphers' Union of North America.
Brotherhood of Railway and -Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and station employees.
Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and other Transport Workers Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers.
Brotherhood of Express Employees.
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America.
Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Alliance.
Should you desire any further information in this connection please advise.
Yours very truly,
_ (signed) F. IT. Hall, Chairman, Negotiating Committee copy to: The Honourable
The Minister of Labour.
The second' question of the hon. gentleman was whether this would apply uniformly to all the provinces. The answer is yes; the moment this is enacted, it gives legal force to collective agreements made between the railways and the employees all across Canada.


Eric Bowness McKay: And will it take precedence over provincial legislation?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, by virtue of the British North America Act.


Mr. FRASER:: The minister said Trans-Canada Air Lines would not come under this
bill. Will Canadian Pacific Air Lines come under it?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think so. I am informed that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines are on the same basis as Trans-Canada Air Lines, and are an excepted company.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 240, to incorporate the Port Alberni harbour commissioners.
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.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think a word of explanation should be given at this time. This bill seeks the establishment of the Port Alberni harbour commissioners. The Department of Transport, apart from the national harbours board, operates public harbours in two ways: first, under the control of a wharfinger or a harbour master, both of whom are paid fees of office; second, under the control of harbour commissioners, such as is being sought at this time by the port of Alberni.
There are several examples of the latter class of control of ports, such as the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Belleville harbour commissioners, the Trenton harbour commissioners and the city of Hamilton harbour commissioners in Ontario; St. Boniface and Winnipeg in Manitoba, and North Fraser and New Westminster in British Columbia. When the business of a harbour master and a wharfinger expanded to such an extent that the harbour master and/or the wharfinger is unable to cope with the traffic that is offering in the port, then the question arises as to whether or not there should not be another form of control. That is exactly what is happening in the port of Alberni. It is deemed theie that the volume of business is now too great to permit of effective control either by the wharfinger or the harbour master. The wharfinger is on a 24-hour call and has a crane operator and several wharf employees under his direction. The wharf, besides being used for freight in transit, is used for storage of lumber. There are perhaps two or three
Port Alberni Harbour

large companies and possibly a dozen smaller ones handling lumber. This necessarily complicates the routing of traffic and increases the business.
The demand for this sort of legislation has come from the municipal authority. The port of Alberni city council, the Alberni city council and the Alberni and district board of trade have all made representations for a commission such as this to be set up, and that the business of the port be controlled in such a manner that the commissioners will be responsible to someone in authority. There is nothing new about the principle or about the sections set out in this bill. It is a model bill based on the New Westminster bill and the North Fraser bill. I can think of little of any difference between the statute which incorporated those commissioners and the one at present before the committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they full-time or parttime commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: That depends on the amount of work. They are part-time commissioners-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: At the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, they are not set up now, but when they are set up they will be part-time commissioners with perhaps one officer, such as a secretary, who would be a full-time appointee.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: On behalf of the city councils of Alberni and Port Alberni and also the board of trade of Port Alberni and district, I wish to express to the minister appreciation of his action in bringing forward this legislation at the present time.
I should also like to thank the staff of the Department of Transport for their courtesy to me in working out the various details of the legislation.
As is well known, Port Alberni has expanded rapidly, being one of the most important shipping ports on the Pacific coast in recent years. It is not generally known in the house that Port Alberni is the western terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway.
, f_he minister explained, the administration of the port has been carried on under a whai finger, in part, the rest of the administration being conducted by a part-time harbour master, and it has been found that with administration of that kind, directed as it was from Victoria and with further relation to Ottawa, such a great distance away, there was not that close personal attention to the development of the port which was necessary in view of the expansion that was taking place. All I can say to hon. members is that this meets with the approval of the people of 
Port Alberni and I recommend it to their consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the tonnages over the wharves?


Lionel Chevrier: Cargoes loaded for and unloaded from foreign countries at the ports of Alberni for the years 1938 to 1945 inclusive are:
1939
1941
1943
1945
Tons
852,119
935,15.1
996,360
2,133,450
248,275
152.413
29.1,267
357,876


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give the number of ships?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the ships, but I can give the gross collections and it may be worked out from that. The collections for the fiscal years from 1937 are:
1937-	38
1938-	39
1939-	40
1940-	41
1941-	42
1942-	43
1943-	44
1944-	45
1945-	46
1946-	47


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister mentioned 2,000,000 tons in 1941, and then there was an amazing drop to something like 180,000 tons.


Lionel Chevrier: In 1941 it was 2.133,450 tons and that dropped to 356,000 tons in 1945. I understand that in 1946-47 there is an increase but I have not the latest figures.


Douglas King Hazen: Has the national harbours board any jurisdiction over this port?


Lionel Chevrier: None whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Remuneration of members.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What will be the remuneration?


Lionel Chevrier: The remuneration is a matter to be fixed by the commissioners themselves. Some commissioners receive no remuneration. The Toronto harbour commissioners receive no salary. Winnipeg and St. Boniface commissioners receive no salary. On the New Westminster board the chairman and the commissioners receive salaries. It will be a matter for the commissioners to determine, subject to the approval of the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Maritime Commission
Sections 12 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Expropriation proceedings under the Railway Act, R.S. c. 170.
Douglas King Hazen: Is the harbour owned by the town? Is it an incorporated town that owns the harbour, or who owns it?


Lionel Chevrier: There are two incorporated municipalities. There is the city of Port Alberni and there is the city of Alberni. The land is owned by either or both of these two municipalities, subject, of course, to government wharves, which are the property of the dominion government, and this bill will grant a conveyance. The information I have is that we are the owners of the harbour as it is now, and the section which we have passed setting out the description .by metes and bounds is for the purpose of the commission and the departmental officers, so that we shall know over what territory the commissioners will have jurisdiction.


Douglas King Hazen: I understand that the dominion government owns the harbour. Am I right?


Lionel Chevrier: It owns certain wharves and owns the bed and the inlet of the river.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Alberni canal is a purely natural inlet from the sea?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is no artificial dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: None.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian maritime commission to exercise certain powers and perform certain duties and functions under the Canada Shipping Act, to administer any steamship subvention voted by parliament, and to exercise powers or perform duties and functions under any other act or order of the governor in council.
Provision is made further for the advisory functions of the commission, for the employment of professional and technical advisers and assistants and the remuneration thereof, and
for all expenses under the act to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. HOWE:: I have a somewhat lengthy statement setting out the purpose of this legislation. I could make it either on the resolution or on the bill. I suggest for the consideration of hon. members that the resolution be allowed to pass, that the bill be introduced and that I make my statement on the bill.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid we cannot consent to that. We wish to have all the information available at the resolution stage.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, in moving the resolution I propose, first, to review briefly the developments which have led to the present Canadian shipping and shipbuilding position which, in the opinion of the government, makes the establishment of a maritime commission desirable at this time.
During world war I, the historic Canadian shipbuilding industry, which had fallen on hard times with the coming of iron and steel, was revived by being given orders for forty-two merchant ships to be built for the imperial munitions board. Early in 1918 the government of the day decided that cargo ships for Canadian account should also be built, and a programme for the construction of forty-five ships was started. This was subsequently increased by a further eighteen ships, making sixty-three in all.
In January, 1919, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited was formed as a government agency for managing and operating government-owned ships.
The first of these ships was delivered to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited on February 22, 1919, and deliveries were spread over the following three. years until the last ship of the programme was put into service on January 29, 1922.
The entire fleet therefore only commenced to earn revenue after the armistice, and by the time all the ships were in service the postwar 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 S80 million.
Maritime Commission

The government held a five and one-half per cent mortgage on the capital cost of each ship, which the ship's earnings were intended to amortize. This had the effect of saddling each ship with very high charges which they were never able to earn. Various recommendations were made from time to time that the costs of the ships should be written down to their new post-war depreciated values; but these recommendations were never given effect to. This arrangement produced a total accrued interest for the whole fleet of over $51 million during its full period of operation, which amount finally had to be written off, together with a total depreciation of over $31 million.
In March, 1923, the sale of twenty-seven of the ships by public tender was authorized, but bidders were few and by 1926 only eighteen ships had been disposed of.
In 1929, seven vessels were transferred to the newly formed Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.
Between 1932 and 1935, all but ten of the remaining ships were disposed of and, finally, in 1936, the last ten were sold expressly for operation by a private syndicate between Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The commencement of the second world war in 1939 found Canada with only thirty-five regular ocean-going ships of over 1,600 gross tons on its register, totalling, in all, 241,880 gross tons. Of these, twenty-two were owned either by the Canadian National Steamships (a company which had been created in 1928 principally to take care of our West Indies trade commitments) or by the Imperial Oil Company.
Once more the Canadian shipbuilding industry was revived, but this time on a very much larger scale than in the first great war. At first, building was confined to naval escort vessels, but in the fall of 1940 the building of merchant ships had become a matter of the highest priority for the allied cause and the United Kingdom called upon Canada to build ships.
In April, 1941, Wartime Merchant Shipping, a crown company, was established to deal with this essential building problem and to develop to the fullest possible extent all the shipbuilding resources of the country.
The first batch of ships programmed by this company consisted of ninety vessels of the "North Sands" type (10,000 tons deadweight). It was later arranged that these should be sold at cost price to the United States, which would in turn "lease-lend" them to Britain.
As a result of this, the British government only bought for cash two completed ships of the twenty-six which they had ordered before the lease-lend arrangement was made.

As soon as construction was well under way, the government decided that a proportion of the ships building in Canada should be retained for Canadian operation.
The Park Steamship Company, another crown company, was accordingly formed in March, 1942, to take over the ships allocated for Canadian operation on the government's behalf. This time, however, it was decided that the ships should not be operated directly by the government agency, but should be allocated by it to various private shipping organizations in the country who would manage and operate them on a fee basis. By this means, private operators were given additional experience in the management of ships, whilst the profits earned by the vessels were turned back through the Park company to the treasury to offset the cost of their building.
As a result of this decision, the first "Park" ship went into service all but three years before V-E day and, by carefully controlling the shipbuilding programme, the last "Park" vessel was completed in September, 1945, one [DOT]month after V-J day. This was a very different state of affairs from that which occurred during and after, the first world war.
By the. time that the ninety ships for Lease Lend had been delivered to the United States, arrangements had been completed for the proportion of ships not required by Park Steamships to be "Mutual Aid-ed" to Britain direct by Canada on a nominal charter hire basis.
The Park Steamship Company was responsible only for ships which were turned over.to it by the government. These vessels were recognizable by the suffix "Park" after their original names (except one, Camp Debert which was also a "Park"). In all, Park Steamship Company have been directly responsible for 176 ships.
One ship named Fawkner Park was bought by the mutual aid board direct from Wartime Shipbuilding, lent by them to Australia, and finally sold to an Australian firm. It never came under the Park company.
The 10,000-ton ships built in Canada and turned over to Britain both by American lcnd-lease and later by Canadian mutual aid were named after North American forts, and the word "Fort" was a standard prefix before all their names. In addition to the ninety bought by the United States of America, a total of ninety-eight "Forts" were turned over to Britain, under mutual aid from Canada. These ships were placed on the British registry but Canada retains title to them.
As the war progressed, various developments took place in the shipbuilding field. The original "North Sands" design, which had

Maritime Commission
coal-burning boilers, underwent two modifications. First, the ships were fitted with oilburning water tube boilers, and this type was known as the "Victory" type. Later, ships were again fitted with Scotch burners but adapted to burn either oil or coal as required. These were known as the Canadian type. To overcome the chronic shortage of tankers in 1942, one "North Sands" and twelve "Victory" type ships were converted to carry liquid cargo. Six small tankers were also built and one was created by a conversion.
A smaller type of ship of 4,700 tons deadweight, suitable for carrying cargoes where the depth of water precluded the use of larger ships, was also constructed. A number of this type were chartered from Park Steamship Company by the Canadian mutual aid board for operation by Britain, and proved particularly useful in helping to provide the requisite tonnage for the invasion.
In the later stages of the war, a number of 10,000-ton ships were suitably modified during building for use as "store issuing" ships and "maintenance" ships for the British fleet. These naval auxiliaries were planned for use in operations against Japan in the Pacific. Later still, the construction of two types of small "China coasters" for eventual use in far eastern waters was undertaken, and three 7,500 ton dead-weight 16-knot diesel driven ships were laid down in order to gain experience in the building and operation of a faster type of vessel.
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 peace time 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 for the second.
Immediately the war was over, the government set about the disposal to private interests of its Park fleet, together with the diesel ships and china coasters under construction. It was provided that, so far as possible, these ships should be sold to Canadian companies for operation under the Canadian flag. There were, however, a certain number of ships which, for various reasons, were not considered likely to be of use to Canada in peace time, and these were offered for sale in the open market. Eleven 10,000-ton converted tankers, one small tanker, seventeen 4,700-ton freighters and one 10,000-ton freighter in damaged condition were sold to foreign interests. Newfoundland also bought one 4,700-tonner. Fifteen of the thirty-five China coasters were also sold to foreign interests as soon as they were completed.
The remaining government-owned merchant ships were offered to Canadian companies on the basis of a special sales formula. This formula for 10,000 and 4,700-ton ships will be found in Hansard for Tuesday, November 20, 1945, at page 2286. One modification was made to the formula then announced, in that the remainder of the purchase price was to be paid in seven equal annual instalments, and not fifteen as originally set out. In addition to these terms, ships purchased by Canadian companies were to be considered as eligible for the double depreciation under the provisions of section 6(1) (n) (ii) of the Income War Tax Act and order in council P.C. 8640 of November 10, 1944. Moreover, an additional special depreciation allowance of thirteen per cent of the cost of the vessels was allowed in the first year of operations.
It was considered that oil-burning vessels would be more in demand by Canadian buyers. As at that time twenty-eight of this type remained amongst the Forts lent to Britain, arrangements were made to exchange these for twenty-eight coal-burnings Parks then on the Canadian register. Just after this exchange was complete, each batch unfortunately suffered one casualty, so that now only twenty-seven ships are on the exchange list. The coalburning Park ships were transferred to British registry, Canada retaining title to them. When the "Forts" arrived in Canada, the Park Steamship Company acted as agents for War Assets Corporation in disposing of them to Canadian companies under the special sales formula, and the ships came on to the Canadian register.
The response of private enterprise to the sales formula offer was most satisfactory, so that, with the exception of the three 4,700-ton ships which are on long-term charter and seven 10,000-ton ships under sales agreement to be delivered to their prospective purchasers upon the termination of their present charters, the Canadian operated government-owned fleet, including the twenty-seven exchanged "Forts", has now been disposed of. This means that six small tankers, 104 10,000-ton vessels and nineteen 4,700-ton vessels are now in the hands of private operators comprising thirty-three different companies registered in Canada.
The three diesel driven ships were sold by War Assets Corporation to the Canadian National Steamship Company. Nineteen China coasters were sold by the corporation to eleven other Canadian companies, and one was taken over by the Department of Trans-
Maritime Commission

port. The terms of sale to Canadian companies under the special sales formula provide that the ships must be operated under Canadian registry, and no application for transfer to any other flag can be made without the written approval of the Canadian government.
Eighty 10,000-ton ships presently under bare boat charter to the United Kingdom, in which are included the twenty-seven exchanged Parks, remain to be eventually disposed of. A total of ninety-eight of the ships were "Mutual Aid-ed" to Britain and, since mutual aid ceased, have been operated by the ministry of transport. In the meantime, the British have bought ten of the ships outright, and seven of the original ninety-eight became casualties. One damaged ship among these ninety-eight was sold by Park Steamships as agents for War Assets to foreign interests.
The remaining eighty will be returned to Canada for disposal as their charters expire. All are to be returned before the end of 1950.
All told, we built, during the war years, a total of 446 merchant vessels in this country. And although I include the forty-two naval issuing and maintenance ships in this total since they had normal merchant ships' hulls and engines, I am not counting the number of naval escort vessels, mine-sweepers, landing craft and tugs which also featured largely in our total war shipbuilding effort. I will now place on Hansard a break-down of these 446 ships. Of this number, 176 vessels were turned over to the Park Steamship Company.


William Henry Golding: Has the minister the consent of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
William Henry Golding: Shall the minister have permission to place these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The accounts are as follows:
CANADIAN MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING-DETAILS OF OPERATION AND DISPOSAL TABLE I-"PARK" FLEET-31st MARCH, 1947
A.	B.	C.	D.	E.	F.	G.	H.	I.Batch of ships	Number in batch	Cost of building	Number of casualties before sale	Total net earnings	Number of ships still earning	Number of ships disposed of	Revenue from sales	Remarks$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	1	"Park" 10,000-ton (deadweight) Dry Cargo Ships.	114	193,217,119 67	4	103,845,010 31	28	82	40,321,163 09	27 on charter to M. of T. exchanged for 27 of Batch 7 below. 1 under sales agreement to Canadian company. 1 sold damaged to foreign interests. Remainder sold to Canadian companies.2	"Park" 10,000-ton (deadweight) Tankers.	13	25,682,823 20	9,243,222 15	13	7,495,721 91	2 sold in damaged condition.2 sold to Canadian companies. 9 sold to foreign interests.3	"Pabk" 4,700-ton (deadweight) Dry Cargo Ships including Camp Debeht.	42	51,763,782 28	2	9,964,207 01	3	37	14,878,997 26	18	sold to foreign interests. 19	sold to Canadian companies. (16 were at some time chartered from Park Steamships by Mutual Aid Board and loaned to Britain).4	"Park" small "Lake" Tankers.	7	6,273,397 21	825,193 62	7	1,775,000 00	1 of these was a converted dredge andwas sold to United Kingdom. 6 sold to Canadian companies, one being in damaged condition.-	176	276,937,122 36	6	123,877,633 09	31	139	64,470,882 26	
Notes.-The approximate sales revenue lost by vessels being sunk or sold in damaged condition totalled $3 331 500.
The six vessels casualty (total loss) cost $9,529,699.89 to budd and earned a net of $3,038,111.28 before they were lost.



Maritime Commission



TABLE II.-SHIPS NOT UNDER PARK STEAMSHIP CO.

[Stage Direction]
1 lr. Howe.]	A. Batch of ships	B. Number in batch	c. Cost of building	D. Number of casualties before sale	E. Total net earnings	F. Number of ships still earning	G. Number of ships disposed of	H. Revenue from sales	I. Remarks5	"Fort" 10,000-ton (deadweight) sold to U.S.A.	90	$ cts 146,013,984 66	$ cts	90	$ cts	Lease-lent by U.S.A. to Britain.
6	"Fort" 10,000-ton (dead-	2	2,927,015 64						Fort St. James and Fort Ville Mabie originally ordered in 1940. Delivered before Lease-lend arranged and paid for by Britain.
	weight) sold to Britain 1941.								
7	"Fobt" 10,000-ton (deadweight) Mutual Aided to Britain.	98	169,280,000 00	7	9,430,039 17	59	32	13,239,547 96	None of these started to earn any charter hire till Mutual Aid ceased, Sept. 1, 1945. 27 exchanged after war for 27 ships of Batch 1 (Table I, above). 21 sold to Canadian companies. 10 bought by Britain 1947. 6 under sales agreement to Canadian companies. 53 still under charter hire in Britain. 1 (Fort Fidler) sold to foreigners (damaged).8	4,700-ton (deadweight) Dry Cargo "Fawkner Park".	1	1,300,000 00	1	427,500 00	Bought by Mutual Aid Board for Australia and finally sold to Australian firm. No charter hire paid.9	Diesel-driven, 7,500-ton (deadweight) dry cargo and passenger ships.	3	10,420,000 00	3	3,750,000 00	Completed 1946, and sold to Canadian National Steamships.10	"B" Type China Coaster	15	11,414,000 00	15	Completed 1946 and 5 sold by War Assets to Canadian companies. 10 to foreign interests.(1,200 tons deadweight).	11	"C" Type China Coaster (330	20	8,610,000 00	20	Completed 1946 and 14 sold by War Assets to Canadian companies. 5 to foreign interests. 1 taken over by Department of Transport.tons deadweight).	Totals	229	349,965,000 30	7 1	9,430,039 17	59	163	173,598,048 26	N otes. 1 he approximate sales revenue lost by vessels being sunk or sold in damaged condition totalled $4 004 700 me cost of building the seven casualties above, totalled approximately $12,060,000.	
2
o
[Stage Direction]
Maritime Commission

[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1947
[Stage Direction]
Batch No. (see Tables I and II)
[Stage Direction]
Operation
(Charter hire of one 10,000-ton (dwt.) "Park" ship from March 31, 1947, until J delivery	
,Sale value of one 10,000-ton (dwt.) "Park" ship	
'Charter hire of three 4,700-ton (dwt.) ships from March 31, 1947, to completion of charter	
Assumed sales value of three 4,700-ton (dwt.) ships on completion of present , charter	
(Charter hire due from U.K. for 27 "Park" 10,000-ton (dwt.) ships from March 31, I 1947, to return of ships to Canada	
(Assumed sales value of 27 "Park" 10,000-ton (dwt.) ships on return to Canada..
"Park" Totals.
[Stage Direction]
Estimated
Revenue
$ cts.
4,714 00 428,570 00
604.000	00
900.000	00
3,712,500 00 10,800,000 00
16,449,784 00

[Stage Direction]
7 7	(Charter hire of 6 "Fort" ships of 10,000 tons dwt. from March 31, 1947, until	28,286 00 2,571,430 00 7,287,500 00 21,200,000 00
	{sale value of six "Fort" ships (10,000-ton dwt.) now under sales agreement	 (Charter hire due from U.K. for 53 "Fort" ships from March 31, 1947, to return	
	(Assumed sales value of 53 "Fort" ships on return from U.K		
		31,087,216 00
		
[Stage Direction]
Remarks
Now under sales agreement for delivery as soon as present charter expires.
On long-term charter to Canadian company. Estimated value of ship on completion of charter $300,000.
As it is not possible to forecast the order of return of individual ships to Canada, the total estimates for the 80 vessels have been divided in the proportion of 27 to 53.
Average value of ships on return taken as [DOT] $400,000.
[Stage Direction]
Maritime Commission

[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1947
1. "Park" Fleet		(Cost of Construction		Millions $	276-9	References Tables Columns	
					
	Estimated Future Recoveries			204-7	III	E and H C
	Estimated net loss			72-2		
	74% Recovered				
	(Cost of Construction			350-0 214-2		
2. non-"PAKK"		Amount Recovered to date	 Estimated Future Recoveries			 31-1		ii IV	E and H C
	Estimated net loss			135-8		
	61% Recovered				
	Cost of Construction			626-9 418-9		
3. Total operations	j	Amount Recovered to Date	 Estimated Future Recoveries			'-I CO		A illlU AA I and II III and IV	E and H C
	Estimated net loss			208-0		
67% Recovered
Actual loss due to
Note:	Casualties	casualties (Millions $)
"Park" Fleet	 3-3
non-"PARK" Fleet	 4-0
Percentage of net loss due to casualties 4-6 2-9
Percentage of total building loss due to casualties 1-2 1-14
Total
3-5
Maritime Commission

Maritime Commission
From the above statements hon. members will see that, of our Park fleet, seventy-four per cent of the original cost of its construction should be recovered. Of the non-Park ships, sixty-one per cent should be recovered. In this case, account must be taken of the fact that, up until September 1, 1945, these vessels were on mutual aid to Britain and earned no revenue or hire.
Moreover, this group includes the three diesel-driven ships and the thirty-five China coasters, which were disposed of for other than war purposes as soon as they were completed at prices which were, of necessity, considerably below their construction costs.
In all, we spent a total of $626-9 million on the construction of these fleets for war purposes. We should finally recover approximately $418-9 million or sixty-seven per cent of our expenditure, leaving an estimated net loss of $208 million. Of this loss, $7-3 million, or 3-5 per cent is due to casualties.
I suggest that the government can look with some satisfaction upon its shipbuilding, ship operating, and ship disposal policies during the past-seven years.
We now find ourselves with a considerable merchant navy. A survey made in 1946 by the united maritime consultative council, which has since ceased to exist, credited Canada with
the possession of a total of 1,948,000 gross registered tons of merchant shipping. On the same basis, the United States were credited with 41,078,000 tons; the United Kingdom,
13,441,000	tons; Norway, 2,663,000 tons; with Canada in the fourth position followed by the Netherlands, Sweden, and France in that order, all of which possess more than one million tons.
A more recent survey made in my department on April 1, 1947, showed that Canadian registered ships of over 1,600 gross tons, which is usually taken as a statistical minimum size for an ocean-going ship, amounted to 386 self-propelled ships having a total of 1,667,724 tons. However, of this total, fifty-two large cargo vessels are confined to operating on the great lakes, whilst seventeen more are passenger ships operating in comparatively sheltered waters.
With the consent of the committee, I will now place on Hansard a table showing the result of this survey for the convenience of hon. members.
William Henry Golding: Shall the minister have permission to place this on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The table follows:
Canadian-registered tonnage over 1,600 gross tons (as of April 1, 1947)
Oceangoing freighters 	
tankers 	
Canal freighters 	. 142 No. - . 11 No. - , 121 No. -	* 898,444 tons - 84,425 tons [DOT] 232,571 tons	153 No.	982,869 tonstankers 	. 25 No. -	- 52,883 tons	146 No.	285,454 tonsWest coast passenger boats 	16 No. -	51,235 tons	16 No.	51,235 tonsSaint John-Digby ferry	1 No. -	4,055 tons	1 No.	4,055 tonsTotal possible oceangoing tonnage Plus the following 70 other vessels over	1,600 tons gross:	316 No.	1,323,613 tonsIcebreaker N. B. McLean 	1 No.	3,254 tonsPaddlesteamers 	5 No.	11,060 tonsInland passenger ships and ferries	12 No.	58,711 tonsUpper lakers	52 No.	271,086 tonsTotal Canadian self-propelled tonnage over 1,600 gross	tons	386 No. vessels	1,667,724 tons
There are also 21 barges over 1,600 net registered tons totalling 61,931 net registered tons.
In addition to the above, Canada holds title to 80 ships totalling approximately 560,000 gross tons at present on charter to the British Ministry of Transport and temporarily under British registry.
Maritime Commission

From the above table it will be seen that our regular ocean-going tonnage today is 982,869 gross tons, compared with 241,880 tons in 1939, or four times as great. This does not include some 560,000 tons on charter to the United Kingdom and temporarily on British registry. When these British boats are returned the Canadian fleet will be six times as great as it was in 1939. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we are now in the merchant shipping business in a big way. Not only that, but we also have a big shipbuilding potential in this country.
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 ship building in these major yards alone. Today they have over 16,000 men in their employ and have orders on hand for 122 various ships, which total roughly 300,000 gross tons.
Before the second world war, the normal government supervision, common to all countries, of our privately owned merchant fleet was carried out by the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the administration of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. We also had a section in the Department of Trade and Commerce which administered the various steamship subventions voted annually by parliament, and the Department of National Revenue was responsible for licensing ships in the coastal trade under part XIII of the Canada Shipping Act.
War conditions made it necessary to augment these arrangements considerably, and hon. members will recall that, amongst other agencies, the Canadian shipping board1, under trade and commerce, the transport controller, under transport, and the director of merchant seamen, under transport, were set up to cope with the additional problems which arose. Of these, the shipping board and the transport controller's office have since been disbanded.
We now find ourselves in a world where all governments are interested1 in the maintenance of the merchant fleets owned in their respective countries.
The united nations has under consideration the formation of an intergovernmental maritime consultative council. Moreover, a number of important developments in the general conditions of sea service are taking place. Hon. members will recall that on February 28 of this year my colleague the Minister of Labour tabled the texts of conventions and recommendations which were adopted at the mari-

time session of the international labour conference on seafaring conditions held at Seattle in June, 1946. Since then, the British shipowners' and seafarers organizations have agreed upon and introduced a far-reaching scheme providing for virtually continuous employment for merchant seamen. For these and other reasons, the government feels that the time has come to reorganize our peacetime shipping administrative machinery, in order that it may better be able to assist and encourage our shipping and shipbuilding industries to maintain themselves in a healthy and efficient state. The government attaches considerable importance to this objective from both the general economic and the defensive points of view.
There is no question in our minds of trying to support a large merchant navy merely from the point of view of national prestige. We do feel, however, that a merchant navy adequate to our needs should be retained. It should be one of the duties of the proposed organization to keep those needs continually under review and to advise the government upon the general Canadian merchant shipping and shipbuilding situation.
Hon. members are well aware that a merchant navy is basically an industry which, like other industries, has to pay its way if it is to survive. It is, at the same time, a definite part of a nation's defensive armoury, and a considerable factor in a nation's economic structure. The efficiency of such an important industry is therefore a matter which must be of concern to any government.
Inseparably related to the merchant navy is the shipbuilding and repairing industry, which must also be taken into full account.
Finally I would remind the committee that, as a result of our war effort, we have established in this country merchant shipping and shipbuilding industries of considerable size.
The continuation, development, prosperity, and welfare of these enterprises is of national importance, both economically and strategically, and it is for this reason that I move the resolution now before the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I congratulate the minister on the splendid address he has just given on the need for developing a national shipbuild* ing policy. I remember when I first came into the house what the condition of the shipbuilding industry was, not only on our coasts but also on the great lakes and the ocean. In Toronto we spend S30 million in buying up property on the waterfront and in building and developing our harbour and grade separation and waterfront. When I first entered

Maritime Commission
the house there was a proposal similar to this for the creation of a maritime commission, something like the railway commission, to regulate maritime shipping. In connection with that, a contract came up in the house in 1923, which was known as the Peterson contract with weeks of debate here. As I remember it, the maritime commission found that they had little jurisdiction on the ocean at that time.
I should like to mention the large shipping plants and others along lake Ontario and the upper lakes. As you look across the Detroit river to the United States side you can see the magnificent plants standing on the banks of the Detroit river. You can see the great United States steel and shipbuilding plants; you can see steamships built in the plants passing through the Welland canal which cost this country $130 million, and has a tonnage as great as the Suez and Panama.
We are an aquatic people. We have never given waterborne traffic and shipbuilding the recognition which it should have had long ago as a great national industry and a competitor with rails to regulate freight rates in this country. During the war, as the minister has said, 53,000 men worked in seventeen plants. I hope that some of these plants will be established in our harbour because it was one of the pioneers of shipbuilding on the great lakes. I think of the plants in Toronto that carried on shipbuilding during the war. There was a great shipbuilding plant at the foot of Spadina avenue in Toronto. Dominion Shipbuilding built all kinds of warships in the last war. I hope that this industry will be brought back to our city again as one of the pioneer cities in the construction of these boats.
I should like to mention the condition in which shipping found itself between the two wars. During that time, in the house I used to hold up copies of the Times of London, England, and the New York Times, showing that great liners and other large ships were being sold for taxes for $50,000 and $60,000. That was the awful condition in which shipping found itself before the second war broke out. If we are to have a maritime commission it is now time that we did something about it because I do not know what we shall do in six months time. This matter was referred to in the debate which we had on civil aviation. In that debate the minister showed what the British shipping commission had done in developing shipping the world over to help the empire on the seven seas and Canada. The growth of the empire has been due to shipbuilding and the union coal and steel, which made Britain mistress of the seas.
In view of what has happened at Moscow and Paris, and the fact that the conference there has failed utterly and has been postponed for six months to meet in London in November next, we shall need ships next November when the four powers reassemble. Shipping will have to be on a proper bigger basis so that the maximum food production may be sent to Britain, Germany and to other parts of Europe to save us from an awful disaster over there in the British zone and central Europe and provoke a third war. I believe one of the ways to prevent that is to have more Canadian ships available next fall and winter. In the short time that Canada has been building ships in war time she has shown what can be done. It is a marvellous achievement. A few mistakes were made in connection with war shipping, but that is bound to come about in and after any great war. I wish to commend the minister for the fine report he has made to the committee and to support the principle of the bill. This Canadian maritime commission is to exercise certain powers and perform certain duties and functions under the Canada Shipping Act, to administer any steamship subvention voted by parliament and so forth. Various other functions may be added to the commission from time to time. Shipping is a great national industry and we should have had maritime shipping commission established in the country long ago to keep pace with our trading position as the fifth best in the world for a nautical people.


Howard Charles Green: The minister had made an interesting statement with regard to shipbuilding in Canada and the Canadian merchant marine. I am sure we are all happy that the merchant marine is in a better position today than it was before the commencement of the recent war. As the minister spoke, I could not help thinking of the great difficulty we had in persuading him and the government to get started building these merchant ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But for the opposition we wrould have been nowhere.


Howard Charles Green: Today I ran across a portion of Hansard of June 14, 1940, which contains my pointed and sincere pleas to the minister to get started on a programme of building merchant ships, and his reply at that time, as reported at page 785 of Hansard, was to this effect:
Whether at a time like this we should divert the productive capacity of Canada to the peacetime operation of building merchant ships is, I think questionable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was true at that time.

Maritime Commission


Arthur Leroy Smith: Somebody else's guess, now.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps he has not been home lately.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out most earnestly that it is of vital importance that a shipbuilding industry be maintained and built up on the two coasts of Canada. It is a great tragedy that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were not continued as the great shipbuilding centres they were in the last century. They have the steel industry and the coal there and I suggest that now is the time to build up and increase the shipbuilding industry on our two coasts.


Humphrey Mitchell: What about Ontario and
Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: Ontario and Quebec are usually well able to look after themselves.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I am speaking now for the maritimes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about shipbuilding.


Howard Charles Green: I was speaking of British Columbia and the maritimes-Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am with you.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think the. Minister of Labour is an expert on shipbuilding. He is on nearly everything else-


Humphrey Mitchell: I know as much about shipbuilding as my hon. friend does.


Howard Charles Green: -but I question his qualifications on this particular subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was in the navy.


Howard Charles Green: He was in the navy twenty-five years ago andi that gives him some authority.


Humphrey Mitchell: A pretty good navy too.


Howard Charles Green: Another question is this. What authority and what responsibility will the government or this maritime commission be assuming for directing traffic through Canadians ports instead of letting it go through United States ports? Mr. Bengough made a 83166-269J
representation along that line when he spoke to the cabinet in March. He is quoted in this
way:
He also advocated establishment of a maritime commission with authority to divert traffic through Canadian ports, adjust rates, and generally to ensure that this traffic is moved for the benefit of the dominion generally.
By the way, that question of fixing rates is another important one. Is the maritime commission to have anything to do with rates? If it is to function along the lines suggested in my last series of questions I think it can be of great help to Canada. Probably it will be of help in any event, but we would greatly appreciate having the minister give us clarification on the different points I have raised.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me that my hon. friend is asking for details of the bill. He asks what powers the bill contains. Surely that is material which should be left until the bill is before the house.


Howard Charles Green: I may point out that one great purpose of the resolution stage, from the point of view of parties in opposition, is that we can make suggestions which may then be incorporated in the bill. It is very helpful to us, and I suggest to the government that it would be well to have these questions asked and answered at this particular stage.


Lionel Chevrier: The object of the resolution is to discuss the principle.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the bill is not in such iron-clad form that suggestions made now by members of the committee1 are of no value.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the Minister of Transport suggest that the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction dealt only with the priniciple of the bill? He started it.


Lionel Chevrier: I said no such thing. I said to the hon. gentleman that the object of discussing the resolution is to consider the principle, and that is a fact.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I merely asked whether the hon. gentleman thought the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction followed his formula.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member heard what I had to say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may continue, the statement I made, did not discuss details of the bill. It discussed the background, showing the necessity for a maritime commission, which I understand, is the purpose of the resolution. If the committee agrees that a maritime commission
Maritime Commission

is necessary and desirable it will certainly pass the resolution and discuss the details of the bill when it has the bill in hand.


Howard Charles Green: We are entitled to know what the commission is to do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is to advise the Minister of Transport on matters affecting shipping and shipbuilding.


Howard Charles Green: We are entitled to more details than that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggested that I make my speech when the bill was before the house. Then we could have discussed the bill. In the meantime we are discussing the principle. The question may be asked as to why the bill is being introduced by the Minister of Recon' struction. The reason is that the Park Steamship Company which is at present under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Reconstruction, is carrying out many of the functions which will be those of the maritime commission after it is formed. In other words, it will be looking after the government's interests in the former Park fleet which has now been transferred to private interests.
The question was asked as to whether the maritime commission will deal with harbours. That matter would, of course,'not fall within its jurisdiction. The maritime commission will merely look after ships and all matters affecting ships, but the matter of harbours for ships will be handled separately by the national harbours board, as at present.
It is the intention that the Minister of Transport will transfer to the maritime commission from time to time certain functions which are now being performed by other officers of the minister. It is the intention that the maritime commission will administer all subsidies. It is the intention that all matters affecting shipping will gradually be coordinated through the maritime commission. My hon. friend has suggested that the maritime commission should allocate shipbuilding.


Howard Charles Green: I did not suggest it. I asked if it was the intention that it should,


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, what does my hon. friend think? Why did he ask the question?


Howard Charles Green: I thought I was asking somebody who knew.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I know the answer. It is a strange question for an advocate of private enterprise to ask. The shipyards are owned by private enterprise and the ships are owned by private enterprise. I assume that the private enterpriser who wishes to build a

ship will build it where he pleases. I also presume that, unless the yards are operated efficiently and competitively, they will in time go out of the shipbuilding business. It will be [DOT] the efficient yards which will survive over the years.
My hon. friend has suggested that the work is unevenly distributed at the moment. That is not correct.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that it has been suggested that certain yards have work and certain other yards have no work. 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.


Mr. BROOKS:: Is that true of the shipyards in the maritime provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is true of the shipyards in the maritime provinces?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are not many men being laid off in the Halifax shipyards?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. They are being laid off in the naval dockyard, not at the shipyard.
I am glad to give my hon. friend that information, because I should like to set him right on that point.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am glad to get that information.


Douglas King Hazen: Can the minister give a little more information about that? I think he said there were 122 ships being built at the present time and 16,000 men employed. Of that number, can he tell us how many ships are being built in New Brunswick and how many are being built in Nova Scotia; how many men are being employed in shipbuilding in New Brunswick and how many are being employed in shipbuilding in Nova Scotia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Living as he does in Saint John where the only major New Brunswick shipyard is located, my hon. friend should be able to tell me that. I cannot tell him offhand. I can tell him how many ships are being built in Port Arthur, which is in my own constituency, and I presume that the hon. member for Vancouver South could tell me how many are being built in Vancouver.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But you are the responsible minister.

Maritime Commission


Douglas King Hazen: The minister gave the total number of ships and the total number of men employed, and I thought he would be able to break that down from the information he has.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will try to give that information when the bill is being discussed. Is there any question I have left unanswered?


Howard Charles Green: I also asked whether the commission would have anything to do with the number of vessels in the merchant marine or the types of vessel, also whether the functions of the commission were to be purely advisory or whether they were to be operational.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The functions of the commission will be as determined by the bill when it is passed by the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport will assign such duties to it as he may deem desirable. Certainly one duty of the commission will be to take over the functions which are now being exercised by the Park Steamship Company in the management of Canada's wartime merchant fleet.


Howard Charles Green: Those ships will all have gone out to private industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In a short time; over the next
two or three years. As I say, this is a commission under the minister. The minister assigns to it such duties as he may wish to from time to time. I assume that its duties will be both advisory and operational. Certainly it will be its duty to watch Canada's merchant marine in the best interests of the government, to advise the minister when changes in policy may be required from time to time, 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. Surely my hon. friend does not wish me to tell him any more about the bill at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I have one more question. Is it government policy to subsidize shipbuilding in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not at present.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Is it a fair question to ask how many men will be appointed to this commission?	'


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter of detail in the bill. My hon. friend may be advised that the bill provides for three.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask the minister a question which bears directly on the resolution, which reads in part:
Resolved, that it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian maritime commission-
The statement made by the minister this evening does not at all enlarge on the corporate aspect of the commission. What has been said by the minister would be perfectly consonant with a commission which has not a corporate character. Will the minister enlarge on that for the information of the committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The corporate character of this commission is exactly parallel to that of the national harbours board. It is formed as a corporation so that it may own property. In other words, at the moment the government owns some ninety ships, eighty of which are on lease to the ministry of transport of the United Kingdom, and about ten are on long-term charters to various Canadian enterprises. These ships will be transferred to the maritime commission. If, in future, it is required to undertake shipbuilding for government account the corporate character will be desirable as an efficient method of doing business.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I was interested in the remarks of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply when he said the shipyards in Canada had all the work they could handle for the next eighteen months. Well, certainly nobody is getting nervous from the rattle of rivetting guns in Prince Rupert at the present time. I would like to see eighteen months of work ahead of them at the present time, in that city, and if he could attend to it I would appreciate it.
I look forward to the formation of this maritime commission, but I should like to know if it will administer all the various points that cover seamen who come under all the various departments. Last year I spoke about the conditions of seamen, and when I got on one angle of it I was referred to this minister and on another angle to another minister. Will all the points come under this commission, so that we may know where we stand, as far as seamen and their conditions of work are concerned?
Before this commission is set up, I should like to see the matter put in the hands of a committee, and have the Canada Shipping Act thrown in along with it, so that we can have a really all-round policy formulated.
When the Canada Shipping Act was reviewed, in 1935 I believe it was, both the present Minister of Veterans Affairs and the
Maritime Commission

Minister of Labour objected to the speed at which it went through. I should like to see more time spent on it in a committee as we will be doing with the national labour code which, we understand, is to come before the house shortly. The formulation of an allround maritime policy should be done likewise. The interested parties should be before us.
I hold in my hand a brief from the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association. Some of the headings are most interesting. For instance, they recommend "that Canadian shipbuilding and shipping policies should be controlled through one responsible government authority, and that Canadian shipbuilders be invited to nominate a representative to all government-appointed committees dealing with questions relating to marine transportation". We do not know the individuals who will comprise the commission, but I should like to see labour represented on it.
I wish to go through one or two of the points which are bothering the seamen at the present time. They would like to see the abolition of the advance note system, and the substitution of slopchests on Canadian vessels. They would like to see a definite ruling on cash draws made by seamen on wages due when in port, similar to the practice in the United States. They would like to see crew accommodations on shipboard similar to those of the United States. Then, they recommend the abolition of shipping fees extorted from seamen for signing on and off ships articles of agreement. They would like to see watches, hours of labour, legal holidays and provision for the eight hour day, the same as obtain in the United States. With respect to sick mariners they would like to see a complete revision of section 308 of the Canada Shipping Act which covers sick mariners, and the coverage of all seamen regardless of whether their vessel sails foreign or coastwise. They would like to see a manning scale, under which there would be a declaration of the government on the question of manning scales for all vessels, and requirements, qualifications and regulations as to crews, certificate of service as able seaman, and penalties for undermanning.
At the present time, on the coast for example, a company can hire some stubble jumper and put him on board. He does not know anything about the work at all. One or two might have a lifeboat certificate, but they might be down in the stokehold. Then,

if a boat 'hits a reef those with experience would be valueless below deck and the deck crew helpless because of lack of experience.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I have been in one or two panics like that, and I would' not want to see any more. I should also like to see duplicate certificates of discharge, to be issued free of charge when originals are lost through shipwreck.


William Henry Golding: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is not dealing with the resolution before the committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is a stubble jumper?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You should know.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that the same as a sod buster?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Along the same lines.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, may I point out that only a few minutes ago the minister himself said that this maritime commission is to carry out all the functions now being exercised by the Department of Transport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to shipping. All the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena are in that category. I submit that he is in order.


Mr. GARDINER:: A stubble jumper is a C.C.F. name for a farmer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is discussing the Canada Shipping Act.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is discussing the Canada Shipping Act, which has nothing to do with the resolution before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it has. This new commission is to take over certain of the administrative work under the Canada Shipping Act.


William Henry Golding: In dealing with a resolution of this kind, the committee can deal only with the principle involved, as to whether or not a commission is to be set up, and what the functions of that commission should be. I believe the hon. member is dealing with something with which, in all probability, this commission will have nothing to do.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: What did I say? Quote the words.


Howard Charles Green: These are the words:
Before the second world war, the normal government supervision (common to all countries) of our privately-owned merchant fleet was carried out by the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the administration of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Then he goes on to deal with the Department of Trade and Commerce, which administers steamship subventions; then, with the Canadian shipping board, the transport controller and the director of merchant seamen. My understanding is that these functions are now to be taken over by the Canadian maritime commission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not say that.


William Henry Golding: I should like to see the committee support the Chair sometimes in trying to conduct business in an orderly fashion. I have spent a good deal of time in looking over debates involving problems such as this which have been dealt with by chairmen of committees. I have looked1 into what happened during the first period of time I was here, when Mr. Bennett headed the government. I find that the same rulings were given by chairmen at that time, and that on many occasions hon. members who then sat in opposition were taking the same position as the hon. member for Vancouver South now takes.
After all, a chairman must assume responsibility and give direction to the committee. I believe the committee will make better progress if it tries to support the Chair. I want to be fair to all. But at the same time there are rules by which we should be governed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say a word-and I do so only to assist the Chair, as I conceive it my duty to do. There is one sentence which might have been read from the minister's statement where it deals with merchant shipping. After reviewing the activities of various government agencies, some of which were mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South, he proceeded to discuss the functions of the proposed maritime commission in this way:
It should be one of the duties of the proposed organization to keep those needs continually under review and to advise the government upon the general Canadian merchant shipping and shipbuilding situation.
I call special attention to the words "general Canadian merchant shipping and shipbuilding situation".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Howard Charles Green: Don't be in a hurry.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I had the floor, until someone else jumped up and took it. I did not ask for any help, and I was not fighting with the Chairman, I accept his ruling. The minister did deal at length with the Park Steamship Company. He did not, however, tell about the wages they paid during the war -and they were not so hot. I have brought up the question at this time because I thought I was being constructive. The resolution, as it reads, deals with certain duties, functions and powers. But one has to be a bit of a mind reader to find out what those principles are. If you inject something constructive into it it would be w-orth while.
I would point out, however, that I should like to see this go to a committee of the house where it would be threshed out, and from which might come an all-round shipping policy which would be suitable both to the shipping companies and to labour. It is apt to be too one-sided and we should try to bring peace into an industry which has not been in too steady a state for a number of years.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The resolution and the minister's comments on it are, I think, both highly commendable at the present time. I was particularly pleased when the minister said:
. . . that merchant ships should be operated in peace time by private enterprise and that all government machinery dealing with merchant shipping should be coordinated.
I agree fully with that, I liked also this statement of the minister:
We spent a total of $626-9 million on the construction of these fleets for war purposes.
And also the statement:
Therefore, whether we like it or not, we are now in the merchant shipping business in a big way. Not only that, but we also have a big shipbuilding potential in this country.
Those were good things to say. The minister further said:
I suggest that the government can look with some satisfaction upon its shipbuilding, ship operating and ship disposal policies during the past several years. I think those policies have been thoroughly justified.
Then the minister said:
We now find ourselves in a world where all governments are interested in the maintenance of the merchant fleets owned in their respective countries.
Maritime Commission

The minister indicates there what I consider a most commendable attitude toward the responsibility of Canada in connection with the defence of freedom in the world in the days to come. I wish to congratulate him upon that statement. Then he went on to say:
We do feel, however, that a merchant navy adequate to our needs should be retained. It should be one of the duties of the proposed organization to keep those needs continually under review and to advise the government upon the general Canadian merchant shipping and shipbuilding situation.
And again:
Inseparably related to the merchant navy is the shipbuilding and repairing industry, which must also be taken into full account. Finally ... as a result of our war effort, we have established^ in this country merchant shipping and shipbuilding industries of considerable size.
While the war was on. I had the privilege of travelling around a little bit in connection with the work of the war expenditures committee; I was greatly impressed with the size and1 quality of the shipbuilding industry which had been established in this country. I was genuinely proud; I felt much more happy to be a Canadian after seeing what we were able to do in Canada.
Finally, the minister said:
The continuation, development, prosperity, *and welfare of these enterprises is of national importance, both economically and strategically, and it is for this reason that I move the resolution now before the house.
Those words find a responsive chord in my being; I am glad the minister used them. While it is said to be poor politics for a member of the opposition to congratulate the government upon what they have done, I do not look at the functions of the opposition in that way. I believe that in a democracy when people do a good job everybody should recognize it as a good job and say so frankly. I think in the past war the minister and his colleagues had a tremendous responsibility and I believe they discharged that responsibility well. I think they deserve commendation and I am ready to give my little quota toward rewarding them. I wish to congratulate the minister upon his achievements in the past and upon his attitude toward the future. I want to say also that I believe this setting up of a maritime commission is a right step at the present time. It inidicates that the same skilful and far-seeing mind that guided our work in this respect during the war is still in charge.
I know I do not need to suggest to the minister that there are enormous problems ahead, probably quite comparable with those which he has solved in the past. The cost of the suitable measures which will have to be
[Mr. Blackmore.l
taken in order to attain the objectives which the minister's words clearly indicate he envisages will be a tremendous item for consideration. I hope the house and the country will be ready to support the minister with the financial means he will require.
I should like to express some doubt that he will be able to acomplish all the things which he has envisaged under the present financial system. I do not wish to go into any considerable discussion on that matter because I would be quite out of order at the present time, but I believe that sooner or later we shall have to face up to the fact, and we must adopt a realistic financial system if we are to attain the wide objectives which must be attained in the days immediately ahead. I just throw out that suggestion to the minister so that he may keep it in mind should he have any spare moments in which to consider such matters.
In closing, I should like to urge the minister that he go forward with the vision and energy and effectiveness which have characterized his efforts during the war. Further, I urge him that if he should find himself hampered by the present financial system he should not hesitate to advocate that such changes be made in that system as will enable him to serve Canada first, and not the financial system first.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Mr. Chairman, I shall not trespass upon the rules of the house by attempting to discuss the details of a bill which I have not seen, but it does seem to me that the minister's remarks were largely of an historical character and contained very little about the principles which we might expect to be contained in a bill having to do with the setting up of a maritime commission. What we learned from his remarks was a history of shipping and shipbuilding in Canada and that we are now in the business in a big way, whether we like it or not. Then he said that we must reorganize our shipping administration. I failed to learn very much, either from the document which he circulated or the speech which he made, about the principles to be contained in the bill to be presented to this house.
The minister did say that the merchant navy of Canada under Canadian registry should be adequate to our needs. The word "adequate" is capable of broad and differing interpretations. Before the resolution is carried, I think we should have more enlightenment as to what the minister means by the words "adequate to our needs." It has been the habit in the past for Canada to have a great deal of her foreign trade carried by bottoms of other countries, and in that way those countries were able to pay for, the wheat

Maritime Commission
and other natural and manufactured products which they purchased from Canada.
I come now to a matter of deep principle and concern which I think the minister should have touched upon. I find that the United States maritime commission is made up of five members, and their act contains a provision that not more than three of those members shall be from the same political party. I hope that that comment will rise to the level of a principle in this bill in the eyes of the minister. How long is the term of these commissioners to be? In the United States the terms are staggered. From the inception of the committee the terms were two, three, four, five and six years, and upon retirement of a member the new member is elected for a period of six years. Then the minister has said nothing as to what this commission is to do. Is it to run our ocean services and supervise rates and so on? Is it to deal exclusively writh foreign shipping, or is it to deal also with domestic shipping or shipping which is partly domestic and partly foreign?
The minister mentioned that there would be subsidies or the possibility of subsidies in connection with shipbuilding in this country. May I ask him if there will also be operational subsidies as well as construction subsidies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend quote the passage where I said there would be construction subsidies?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: 1 gathered from the
minister's general remarks that there would be subsidies, but if he indicates to me I was mistaken I shall be glad to withdraw. Shipbuilding, however, is generally conceded to be much more expensive in Canada. If I recall correctly, the cost of the destroyers we built was almost three times as much as in Great Britain, and it is a natural assumption that shipbuilding may cost more in this country. If that is not so I am sure the country will be happy to hear it. Perhaps the minister will explain how private owners of shipping lines will be able to purchase ships built in Canada as cheaply as they can purchase them in Great Britain or in other countries.
Will there be a provision in the bill for the acquisition by the maritime commission of obsolete vessels? In the United States maritime commission act there is a provision whereby vessels seventeen years of age or over which have become obsolete will be taken over by the .commission and funds are made available for ship-owning lines to acquire new ships built in that country.
The minister did not mention anything about insurance. It may be a question of S3166-270
principle whether the government intends to embark on that veiy large and important aspect of the shipping trade, as has been done in the United States.
I think it would also be most useful to the committee to learn something about the intergovernmental maritime consultative council which the minister mentioned in his remarks. Has it been set up, or is it likely to be set up soon, and what is expected of it?
Is it the intention under this bill to have a reserve fleet set up, which would be of great assistance in the event of another war? I might quote from an article in the Yale Review, which says:
The strategic importance of merchant shipping has long been known and ably expressed by many writers from the time of Rear Admiral Mahan on. Admiral Nimitz has recently stated: "This war has fully confirmed the necessity for a strong and sound merchant marine in time of peace so that it may be employed as an auxiliary of the army and navy in time of war."
Other authorities are quoted in the same article. We heard so frequently during the war, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, of an eastern Canadian port not named but which we all knew to be Halifax. That port found itself of great use in the first world war and of inestimable value in the second world war, but in between those two wars it became a Cinderella so far as governmental activity and shipbuilding was concerned. If the government does contemplate establishing a reserve fleet and perhaps reserve shipbuilding facilities I would urge that Halifax be made the centre of that activity because of its proximity to the European continent and also because it was the base for ships which left Canada for the old country and carried cargoes through the North sea to the Archangel route. It is a port which should be greatly strengthened from both its strategic value and its natural shipbuilding advantages. Would the minister be kind enough to answer some of the questions I have asked?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked a number of questions. Some of them had to do with details of the bill. The purpose of the maritime commission is to watch the interests of Canada and Canadians in shipping and to recommend such adjustments in policy to the minister as may make for the best use of a Canadian fleet for the benefit of Canada.
My hon. friend asked if we are to have a reserve fleet.. All the boats we built during the war are now actively engaged in commerce and as long as they are required in commerce I presume they will be active. If they are not required in commerce it will, I presume, be the function of the commission to advise

Maritime Commission

the government on questions such as setting up a reserve fleet, but that is a matter of policy which will be decided in due course by the government of the day, with the advise of the maritime commission.
My hon. friend said that shipbuilding costs a great deal more in Canada than in other countries. Our yards seem to be having no great difficulty in competing with the world in building ships at the present time. They are building ships for Brazil, Holland, France and, if I am not mistaken, for Portugal, and I believe that there is a very good prospect that we may be building ships for Argentina. Our shipbuilding is wholly competitive and, all things taken into account, it operates at a lower cost than obtains in United States yards.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Their yards are subsidized, are they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know. Ours are not. So far as the United Kingdom yards are concerned, they may be able to build ships cheaper than we can, but they are booked up for the next three or four years, and if anyone wants a ship he finds that Canadian yards suit his purpose very well. Whether in the future it will be sound government policy for Canada to subsidize certain shipping routes, as is now done with certain inland routes is a matter which the maritime commission will study, and upon which it will advise the government.
As to whether any policy should be devised to stimulate shipbuilding, that is a matter for study by the maritime commission and advice to the government of the day. The maritime commission should be wholly familiar with all the requirements of Canada's maritime fleet and familiar with the government's needs in shipping and shipbuilding. It should weigh the two and be in a position to give sound advice. It will be the one agency of government whose duty it will be to examine every detail of maritime matters, shipping, and shipbuilding and to keep itself fully informed on the situation in Canada and in other parts of the world, and be in a position to answer any question which the government may require to have answered.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would1 the minister
amplify his statement, "We do feel, however, that a merchant navy adequate to our needs should be retained." Would he explain exactly what the government had in mind when he made that statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That means adequate to our needs from time to time. I am not suggesting any policy; I am not in a position to do so. I would not suggest that we have a merchant 
navy sufficient to carry all our exports. I would suggest that we require a merchant navy able to carry a substantial part of our exports and to protect Canada's position in the matter of freight rates and other problems of carriage. Today we are the fourth maritime nation in the world', and when the boats now on British register are returned we shall probably be the third maritime nation in the world. Whether Canada in the future will require to maintain that position is a question for the maritime commission to study, so that it will be in a position to advise the government. Being a shipping and shipbuilding nation at the moment, it is important that we shall remain a shipping and shipbuilding nation.


Howard Charles Green: What about the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a conference of interested governments formed to consider establishing an intergovernmental maritime organization. It met first in London and then in Washington, and is meeting at the present time in one of the Scandinavian countries, I think Sweden. It is discussing the present and future position of shipping; whether the present tonnage afloat is sufficient to meet the requirements; and, in general, all matters affecting world shipping. As I understand the functions, they are wholly advisory. Canada has been represented at the meetings and intends to continue as a member of that body.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In his statement the minister mentioned merchant seamen. I am wondering whether they come under the commission and, if the commission takes over, will parliament have a chance to discuss with the minister the different regulations in regard to the training of these merchant seamen? At present we have a school at St. Margaret's bay, and I imagine that that would come under this commission. Am I right in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Lionel Chevrier: The school at St. Margaret's bay is no longer in existence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When did it go out of existence?


Lionel Chevrier: Some months ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are not going to have a school any longer?
Mr. CHEVRIER,: There were two training schools set up during the war, one at Prescott and one in Nova Scotia. Both have been closed down. They were established for the training of merchant seamen, engineers, stokers and so forth. Seamen are trained today in

Maritime Commission
schools. There is provision for this in Toronto and in Rimouski and in certain other parts of Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this commission have any control over that at all?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a question to be dealt with when the bill is before the committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not know whether it is or not. That is something we want to know now.


Lionel Chevrier: I am submitting that it is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned merchant seamen in his statement. Parliament should have a chance to discuss the different regulations in regard to merchant seamen.


Lionel Chevrier: Parliament will have every chance of discussing anything that the commission has to do with reference to seamen when the bill is before the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Under some of these other crown companies and boards that have been set up by parliament we find that we have no chance at all to discuss anything about them. We cannot find out much about them when we put questions on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend was here when the discussion took place on the compensation for merchant seamen he was told under what headings and under what conditions the position with reference to merchant seamen could be discussed. I said that they could be discussed on at least' two or three occasions. I do not want to anticipate what is in the bill, but I think there will be a further opportunity at that time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister will have to agree with me that quite often a minister has said that we could discuss a certain question at such and such a time, but when that time comes along we are politely told that we cannot. I wondered whether we could be put straight on this.


Mr. BAKER:: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I have answered to the best of my ability every question that my hon. friend asked. I cannot go beyond that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this commission be responsible to parliament? Can we ask questions in regard to the commission when the Minister of Transport is before the committee?


Lionel Chevrier: The commission will be responsible to the minister. It is a corporate body which will be set up in the nature of the national harbours board. It will be a corporate body which can be sued and can sue. The actions of the body can be discussed from time to time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What jurisdiction has it over merchant seamen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the present time merchant seamen are governed by the Canada Shipping Act and under the regulations of the Department of Labour. It may or may not be that at some future time the maritime commission may take over certain functions which are at present under these two jurisdictions. There is nothing in the legislation which specifies that the maritime commission will have direct charge of merchant seamen.


Loran Ellis Baker: I am sure that all shipping and seafaring men will be anxious to see what the bill contains. They will appreciate this resolution which establishes a corporation to be known as the Canadian maritime commission. We need to coordinate, correlate and consolidate all matters pertaining to merchant shipping. This is something which should have been done long ago, and I welcome this resolution. I am not going to speak at any length on it because I want to see what is in the bill. I wish to say that at one time the township of Yarmouth owned more shipping per capita than any other place in the world. At one time Canada was a country to be very much considered when it came to world shipping and I should like to see her in that position again. This is a step in the right direction without any question. I just wish to say that I heartily endorse the resolution.


Mr. McLURE:: I have a question or two to ask on the principle of the bill, that is, if there is any principle in it. The resolution states that the Canadian maritime commission is:
... To exercise certain powers and perform certain duties and functions under the Canada Shipping Act. to administer any steamship subvention voted by parliament. . . .
Will all subsidies and subventions, which are one and the same thing, be under the control of the Canadian maritime commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That will make for a lot less work for quite a few of the departments. For instance, all the subsidies paid by the Department of Public Works will come under the maritime commission?
Maritime Commission


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not refer to ferry boats as shipping.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Some of them are not because they do not float.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The subsidies under the Department of Public Works which go to the ferries and the different boats are not classed as subsidies under shipping?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the subsidies under the Public Works Act.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Under Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And under Transport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Here is a chance for the ministers in these departments to have a lot less work to do. These matters will all be administered under the Canadian maritime commission. I am not going to go into the details of this resolution, but I should1 like to know if all the subventions and subsidies which are to be expended by this commission will be put in the estimates and then handed over to the commission and the commission be not responsible to any minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be responsible to the Minister of Transport.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The Minister of Reconstruction mentioned some very large ship building plants in Canada, and I should like to ask him, if it is relevant to the resolution, to tell us where the largest privately owned shipyards in Canada are located.


The CHAIRMAN:: That is not relevant to the resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My first impulse would be to say Canadian Vickers in Montreal, but I am not sure.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have nothing more to say at the present time, but when the bill is before us we may get some information with regard to subsidies.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not
answered certain questions I asked. First, will the commission have anything to do with rates? Second, will the commission have power to direct traffic through Canadian ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ocean rates, I should judge, are fixed by competition. The maritime commission might fix rates and find that the ships could not operate under them. The answer

is that ocean-going rates will not be fixed by the maritime commission. As far as inland rates go, adjudication is the function of the board of transport commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: What about the question of directing traffic through Canadian ports? Will the commission have power in that regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The shipbuilding industry is a private industry and I presume ships will go where the traffic offers. Usually it is traffic that attracts ships and not vice versa.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few observations to make on this resolution. Last year I supported the proposal for a Canadian maritime commission and I was not alone; I had the support of the late member for Halifax. Now it is the intention of the government to increase the powers of that commission by placing all steamships subsidies voted by parliament under the administration of the commission. Those subsidies were granted by the Department of Trade and Commerce and I desire to pay tribute to Mr. F. E. Bawden, who has retired but had been there for a long time. He was very helpful to members of parliament whenever they needed his assistance in establishing the amount of the subsidy.
I believe, sir, that all subsidies should be under the control or administration, not of a commission, but of a competent civil servant responsible to the minister, who, in turn, should be responsible to the house. Perhaps I am old-fashioned. Perhaps I am too old a member of parliament to be sufficiently streamlined in my views, but that is my conception .of parliamentary responsibility. I am strongly opposed to any commission that will dispose of moneys voted by parliament. The minister is responsible to the house, and the minister never had any trouble about subsidies. Sometimes there was a little discussion but everything was in order, and while members of the opposition looked at the estimates through magnifying glasses they found no scandal. Some subsidies were given to large companies like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; others were given to maritime companies that were doing excellent service.
This proposal with regard to the commission is one step further in increasing bureaucracy. I may be wrong, but this is a matter of principle with me. I do not know those who are in charge of subsidies at the present time, not

Maritime Commission
in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, but in the Department of Trade and Commerce. They may be competent, but if they are not competent the minister should replace them with competent people. No one will convince me that there are no civil servants who can do the work. I would suggest to the minister that he amend the resolution and replace the commission with the same men he has in view for administering the service, but no commission. That is the first point.
The second point is this:
Provision is made further for the advisory functions of the commission, for the employment of professional and technical advisers and assistants and the remuneration thereof-
Oh, the remuneration thereof. That is important. It goes with technicality and profession.

and for all expenses under the act to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
What the department needs in this regard is not so much professional men and technicians as plain common-sense men with experience. The trouble in all departments at present-and I waited for an occasion to say this-is that there are too many technicians and too many professional men. Most civil servants do not want to start at the bottom and go up quietly, learning from experience every year. They come out of universities as geniuses ready to govern the whole world, and they are too bright and. clever for our time. They give the cold shoulder to those who have been there for a long time, who know their business, who have experience, and who are not so competent because they have not so many letters after their names.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman is perfectly right,


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. In other times, what was needed of civil servants was intelligence, common sense and a good high school education and they were ready to learn. Now they do not want to learn. They are ready to teach, and that is the trouble, and they teach us a great lesson, the lesson of incompetence. I remember, in the old times when Jim Malcolm was Minister of Trade and Commerce, there was a small company organized at Riviere du Loop to operate a ferry service between Riviere du Loup, Tadoussac and St. Simeon, which is one of the finest services of the kind in Canada. In those days the thing to do was to see the minister, and if he felt that the service was needed he told' us to go and see Mr. F. E. Bawden, who was a nice old gentleman with experience. He would tell
us what were the requirements for passengers and traffic and what the department could do. He had experience and everything was done in a familiar way. Nothing was said against him in former times, because he was doing his work very well.
I do not criticize those who are in charge now; I do not know them. I simply say that the old practice was an excellent one. There is something much more important about the Canadian maritime commission, and that is that, in the first place, we should have a Canadian merchant marine. We had a big navy during the war. Very well. Now that we are in the post-war period1, we need a big merchant marine, and last session I made suggestions accordingly to the railway and shipping committee when I inquired about Park Steamships.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and the Minister of Transport are two of the best and most active ministers in the cabinet. I may say the same thing about another one who will be closely related to them under this legislation, namely, the Minister of Trade and Commerce; and this is not to depreciate the other ministers. I speak of one thing, the Canadian maritime commission. I believe that we should have kept all the ships we had during the war, and that Canada should have her own bottoms for shipping Canadian goods throughout the world. Why should we be dependent on any other country for that? I have been told, although I am not sure about it, that the Greek firm of Goulandris offered to buy quite a number of Canadian ships, and they are waiting for a short time longer to put the Greek flag on those ships. I wonder if that is true. I should like to have some information about that.
At the present time, ships are just as precious to the country as are railways or aeroplanes. We appreciate the new methods of transportation. Everything is being modernized. Nevertheless, ships will always have their place in trade. That is why I cannot say otherwise-though without any undue spirit of criticism-than that there is no need for a Canadian maritime commission at the present time, if this commission is to do part of the work actually done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am warning the government about the new trend toward getting so much technical advice in trade. Trade is done by a buyer and a purchaser, and Canadian tradesmen who ship their goods by water or by air and who may require information, get it mostly from the bureau of statistics, although they may get some information from those who have been in the depart-
Maritime Commission

ment for a long time. The dealings of trade must be carried on by two people or by two companies, the seller and the buyer. Nothing can be changed about that. That principle cannot be streamlined. When there is a third party, it causes embarrassment to the other two. This is no criticism; it is a warning.
I believe that trade is the lifeblood of this country and we cannot play with it. We must keep the largest possible number of ships. We should build ships for Canada instead of building them for any other country or selling our own ships. I remember that in 1937, on the eve of the war, I went to England and visited the Clyde. What was I told by Scottish and English shippers? I was told that the maritime trade of England had gone down precisely because England had built too many ships for foreign countries. This is a warning. At the time I remember that the newspapers of Edinburgh and Glasgow were repeating the same thing constantly. What I say now is what I read then. It seems to me that it does not serve any purpose to recall facts which are positively true and it does not serve any purpose either to recall the experience of other countries. If Great Britain had built ships for herself instead of building them for other countries, her position in world trade would have been much better on the eve of the war and Germany could not have controlled the trade of many other countries.
I will just leave it at that, and I warn the minister seriously about this problem which I consider to be of the utmost importance, the problem of Canada having the largest possible number of ships, selling Canadian ships to no one except a Canadian and having Canadian ships registered in Canada. Why does the Canadian Pacific Railway Company register ships in London and elsewhere? Why does it not register its ships in Canada? What is the use of having our own legislation about shipping if it is not taken advantage of by the biggest shipping company in the country and which calls itself a Canadian company? It is for the protection of our own trade and for the protection of the Canadian people that I am so emphatic about this. I do not want the Canadian maritime commission. I do not believe in it. I want the control of shipping under parliament. That is all I want.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, for about twenty minutes. I desire to ask the minister a question or two. For about fifty years there has been a passenger and cargo steamer service on the inland lakes of British Columbia, some ships carrying passengers and cargo and
some carrying cargo only. Throughout the years, organizations representing farmers, commercial and business interests, have urged that those steamers be brought under the board of railway commissioners and, more recently, under the board of transport commissioners, but so far without success. My understanding is that the board of transport commissioners at the present time have control of passenger rates and freight tariffs but do not have any control over schedules or services given on those inland lakes, with respect to either passenger or freight service. That has been a great handicap to producers in that district for many years, because many of them depend on the steamer service for getting their produce to market. Even last year carloads of apples were taken down the Arrow lakes on a barge pulled by a tug supplied by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, after the weather was nearly at zero. Hundreds of tons of baled hay stood in the open on the wharves, because the accommodation supplied by the small barge, taking one carload on it at a time and making two or three trips a week, simply could not handle the product in the time required. I myself saw a whole carload of hay standing on the wharf and it had been there for nearly three weeks waiting for transportation. In view of the fact that this resolution says:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian maritime commission to exercise certain powers and perform certain duties and functions under the Canada Shipping Act, to administer any steamship subvention voted by parliament, and to exercise powers or perform duties and functions under any other act or order of the governor in council.
I wish to ask the minister this question. At the present time I understand the postal department pays a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for carrying the mails on these lakes. In view of the fact that through the years it has been impossible to get these steamers brought under the board of railway commissioners, or more recently, the board of transport commissioners, will these steamers be brought under the control of the maritime commission, in view of the terms of the resolution?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume that, in order to answer the hon. gentleman, one would have to have the bill before him. However I can tell him that the resolution, in its present wording, would not cover a position such as the one to which he refers. The Transport Act was amended last year in order to do that. While I am not familiar with the locality he has in mind and cannot answer

Supply-Agriculture
the question which he asks, I can say that it is not the purpose of this resolution to deal with that situation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If it is not out of order, I should like to ask the minister whether the three commissioners are to be full-time men or just part-time men. How are they to be chosen? For instance, is a labour man to be chosen, one with experience in shipbuilding; or will one be chosen from the Pacific coast, one from the Atlantic coast and one from central Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no provision in the bill specifying how the commission will be appointed. There will be three full-time commissioners, and they will be appointed by the governor in council. But what system the government may adopt, if any, will be determined by the government.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 336, to establish the Canadian maritime commission.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the Chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service-
23. Marketing service administration, $422,749.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Chairman, the North Battleford agricultural society held a fat-stock show and sale in May of this year. Some of that beef found its way here to the city of Ottawa. I saw an advertisement in one of the local papers advertising the North Battleford beef. I went to the store which had advertised, and said I wanted to get some good beefsteak. When I asked for that North Battleford beef I was shown a piece of beef which certainly was not of choice quality. I protested and said I did not think that could be show beef, whereupon the manager of the store, hearing, the discussion, came along, went to the cooler and brought out a piece of choice beef.
I bring this matter up because I believe, when these meats are offered for sale in butcher shops, and held out as show beef, there should be some means of identification for the protection of the buyer and that of the producer. Has the minister or his department any means of identifying beef by marking, or in some other way, for the protection of the consumer and the producer?
Right Hon, J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture): So far as I know, there is no
practical way of checking that, except in the way it was checked by the hon. member. When he saw an advertisement and went in to buy a certain thing, he saw that he got it. Apparently that is what the hon. member did in this case. Stores do advertise things for sale, and do sell other things. If one goes in and asks for beef he is likely to get only beef; but if he says he wants a particular kind he will probably get that kind. So far as I know, there is no other protection.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Then there is nothing to stop a butcher from buying one carcass of choice beef and then selling perhaps ten or fifteen carcasses. There would seem to be no great difficulty to have some way of branding beef as a special type. The butcher will charge nine or ten cents a pound more for the choice beef, and I should think it would be simple to identify it from the time it leaves the farm until it is sold to the customer.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to say a word on this item. I believe when it was last considered there was a good deal of discussion concerning beef. The people in, my constituency are not at all satisfied with respect to the situation in connection with beef, and are greatly concerned about the loss of the United States market. They envisage a time when we shall be left without that market, and when the beef situation will deteriorate seriously.
I do not propose to enter into a detailed discussion on this matter, because I understand the whole question was taken up in considerable detail the other day. The minister assured the house that he was taking care of the United States meat market, and that it will be there for us when the time comes that we have taken care of Britain's needs. I understand that assurance was given by the minister. I appreciate it, and congratulate him upon it. I hope he will be strong, enough in the cabinet and in the country to see that that assurance is made good.
Meanwhile the people who produce beef in my constituency have told me they consider that the minister should take steps to increase meat production in Canada, which they believe he could do to the point where we could take care of Britain's needs and also provide a surplus to hold the United States market. The people in my constituency say that it is just a matter of price; that if the price of beef is taken care of the production will increase to a point sufficient to supply all the needs.
The minister may feel he has done all he can up to the present time to increase beef production. The best informed men in my
Supply-Agriculture

constituency do not believe that is so. I do not attempt to speak with authority in the matter, although those closely connected with me are engaged in the production of beef and probably know a good deal about it. Men in my constituency who, I am sure, do know, are satisfied that if the minister changed his policy in connection with beef we could supply Great Britain's needs, and also the United-States market.
I now turn to the matter of hog production. Again the people in my constituency who produce hogs are dissatisfied' with the situation. Mine is one of the major hog producing constituencies. When the minister had a suitable price for hog production during the war we saw hogs in all directions in my constituency, but now one has to look many miles to see any hogs. Men who have allowed their hog producing facilities to fail off are hardheaded and practical men, men who know whether or not money can be made in the production of hogs; men who know when the hog situation is precarious and when it is stable. These men have gone out of the production of hogs for purely business reasons.
I do not propose to try to suggest to the minister the details -of what is necessary; but once more the difficulty arises, according to what they tell me, from the fact that the prices they have to pay for the things which enter into the production of hogs and the prices they get for the finished hog show unsuitable relationship. Then there is the fact that the income tax collector takes away a considerable amount of what is gained through the production of hogs. When those three items are considered' they say it simply is not worth while to produce hogs.
They point also to the fact that there is a lack of stability in the hog situation; that there is no assurance that the price of hogs will not suddenly go out just when they have sows and other facilities to produce hogs in considerable supply. Therefore they will be the loser or, to use a common expression, they will be left holding the bag. I am not criticizing the minister and I want him to understand that fully. I d-o not want to be harsh about the matter at all, because I realize that the minister is not master in his own department; that at times he must defer to the opinions of other men in the cabinet; that sometimes those men do- not know nearly as much about agriculture as they ought to know.
I just want to say this in strengthening the minister's hands in striking out for a better situation with regard to hog production. Men in my constituency are not by any means

satisfied with the set-up with regard to hogs and if that set-up were made right, if the prices of the things which they have to feed to hogs and the price which they get after the hogs are shipped were right and if they were given a reasonable assurance .that the income tax collectors would not come around and steal a large percentage of what they had gained by their hard efforts, the minister would have a tremendous production of hogs in my constituency. I believe that would apply generally to all constituencies in western Canada.
I notice, in reading over Hansard, that the minister has said that there just is not the feed available. Perhaps there is not the feed available at this time, but I would say that the men in my constituency and in other western constituencies with whom I have talked are of the opinion that the minister could get the feed if he just had a free hand in connection with the conditions under which that feed could be produced. Once more price is an important factor. Feed could be produced. There are irrigation areas in Alberta which could be turned into the production of barley and other feeds if it were found profitable so to do. I just wanted to draw these matters to the attention of the minister so that he will know how the people of my constituency feel anyway.
I wish to turn now to sheep production. There is widespread dissatisfaction, I would say universal dissatisfaction in my constituency with the sheep policy of the Department of Agriculture. It is pointed out that the cost of producing wool and producing sheep is going up from year to year, and there are considerable risks which must be faced. The result is that men do not feel they can produce sheep with confidence and assurance. They point to conditions across the line which are much more conducive to an attitude of confidence among sheep producers. They say that if those conditions could be imitated in Canada we would have plenty of sheep and wool produced in this country.
I shall say no more with regard to that. I just wish to say in a general sort of way that now is the time to increase the production of feeds, of beef, of pork and pork products and of wool and sheep. I think this country should be turned into a perfect larder of food from coast to coast. I believe the minister agrees completely with me. It is-the duty of the Department of Agriculture to come out strongly for measures which will enable the people who are engaged in the production of these important commo-

Supply-Agriculture
dities to produce to the full of their capacity right now. I know the minister cannot tell of the difficulties which surround him and I realize there are many of them. However I have said what the people in my constituency think. Therefore I have discharged my responsibility as the representative of the federal riding of Lethbridge in the year 1947.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
2J/. Agricultural economics, $287,536.
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I notice in the minister's report that reference is made to farm management which comes under the economics division, and there are a few questions I wish to ask on that particular subject. On page 189 of the report reference is made to a study that is being carried on in the milk district of Winnipeg with a view to providing an analysis of costs of production. The report states that a preliminary report has been distributed to cooperators. I should like to know what is meant by the term "cooperators". Also, I should like to know if there is such a report and, if so, will it be made available to the public and when may we expect it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Manitoba dairy study on the central tendencies of dairy costs was carried on by the economics branch. The major value of cost accounting to any enterprise is in the fund of information that is necessary to be supplied in order to calculate the costs. This requires data on food production, labour and other details of farm management not likely to be secured otherwise. The end results in cost calculations are also valuable if only to appraise what is likely to happen under any given price situation. The central tendencies in the cost of milk production in the Winnipeg milk area were placed in a table by those who carried on the investigation. The general result is that they give a number of forms' of cost groups. In 1942-43, 104 farms were examined into; in 1943-44, 93 farms; in 1944-45, 91 farms. Those were farmers who cooperated with the economics branch in making this investigation possible. They carry on and give information as to what happens on their farms and the costs of everything related to them. Results are calculated on the experiences obtained through the cooperation of these farmers. The average cost for the first year was 73-5; for the second year, 83, and for the third year, 85-9. That is on the basis of butter fat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I asked whether the report would be made public and if so, when we could expect it.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the report is completed it will be made public.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In the same report there is a section dealing with land utilization, and it is stated that the land use committee met in Regina on April 5, 1945, and made certain recommendations. It states that a great deal of information is available or has been accumulated on the question of land utilization, but it is said also that this has not been effectively distributed for public use. These words appear in the minister's report:
.. .that too few persons are aware of these facts; and too little use is being made of these facts. It was felt that coordination of this information should be undertaken and a broad policy of land use developed.
That is very good advice. What is the department doing at the present time to distribute the information more effectively than has been the case in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: We put out reports when the investigations have been completed in connection with any districts investigated, and through those reports we distribute the information which has been gained. For example, I presume the investigation referred to about which there were discussions at Regina is something along the lines of what I have here, which says that in Saskatchewan a land classification was completed in the Elrose-Conquest area in a block of twenty municipal units in the extreme southwestern corner of the province. Such a report would be available to the persons interested and most of them would live in that area. The reports are published for distribution.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Does that mean that they are mailed in accordance with a specific mailing list to get into the hands of the people who would benefit from the report?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are distributed free to anyone who asks for them. When an investigation of that kind is made in a district nearly everyone in the district would1 know that the investigation was going on. In the milk investigation in Manitoba, for example, when you visit and get in touch continuously with 109 farmers I would expect that all of them would ask for a copy of the report when it was made. I would presume that it would go even farther than that; that the reports would go not only to those interviewed who inquired for it but to others roundabout who knew that the investigation was going on and inquired for a copy of the report.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I might make a suggestion to the minister. I have had a little experience in adult education, and I found that one
Supply-Agriculture

of the chief obstacles arose from the fact that the people did not know that a report of that kind was available. Most people would ask for the information if they knew it was available, and where they could get it. Those who would be directly involved in the investigation would, of course, know all about it, but a great many would not know. I would suggest that reports of that type might be sent around to all the schools, perhaps with a note requesting the schoolteacher to make it known to the public in the area that such a report was available. It might then find its way into the hands of the people who would benefit from it the most.
Under "Marketing Research" in the economics division there is an account, in the annual report of the minister, of an investigation that was made and may still be under way into the marketing of fruits and vegetables in the city of Winnipeg, a study which was requested by the Manitoba department of agriculture. It is pointed out that the investigation was carried on to find out, first, the feasibility of building a wholesale terminal market in Winnipeg for the marketing of fruits and vegetables, and, second, what portion of that market could be served by Manitoba-grown vegetables and potatoes. It is further pointed out that seventeen per cent of the volume laid down in Winnipeg was of Manitoba origin and that about $9,000,000 worth of fruits, vegetables and potatoes were marketed in Winnipeg during 1944-45, which is a substantial amount. Is there a full report available of that investigation which would show what part of that product was sold in the city of Winnipeg and what portion of it was distributed to other towns in the province, together with any information along that line?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a report of that investigation which has been published by the Manitoba government. The investigation was asked for by the Manitoba government; the results have been made known to them, and their report has already been published.


Percy Ellis Wright: To what extent is the department carrying on investigations to determine the cost of production of various agricultural crops? I suppose that would be carried on under this branch, and I Should like to know the various products that have been investigated and where one can get information as to their cost of production in different areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only one that is being carried on at the moment is the one in Winnipeg with regard to milk costs. There is information available in regard to the three years that I mentioned. That is continuing,

the information is being brought up to date, and when that is completed the report will be published.


Percy Ellis Wright: I w'onder why more work of that kind is not being done, if that is the only such project now being carried on. If we are to implement the principles of the Agricultural Prices Support Act the department will require information on the cost of production of a variety of agricultural products in order to be in a position to establish intelligently floor prices for the different agricultural products. I am surprised to hear the minister say that costs of production of only one product are now being investigated. The department must have information on costs of production of various farm products if it is to establish floor prices intelligently. I would ask the minister how he expects to establish reasonable floor prices without such information.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course for many j'ears organizations have been set up in the provinces to do this very work. To my knowledge, the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture has been doing this very type of work in Saskatchewan at least since 1914, when I first went into the legislature. The branch was there then.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the provincial branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and the gentleman in charge of that branch then has, for quite a number of years, been in charge of the branch here. I refer to Doctor Booth. He had his experience first in Saskatchewan; later went to Washington, and still later came here and has been carrying on these investigations with the cooperation of the provinces. There is one difficulty about such information. I have, for instance, a table here showing production costs as 73-5 cents for 1942-43, 83 cents for 1943-44, and 85-9 cents for 1944-45. That bears out the contention of many persons. By the time you get through with your investigations the costs have changed. While it is an advantage to know what the costs have been in the months or years that have gone by, the information is not just as valuable as one would expect in determining what costs are today. It simply gives one a method by which he can make perhaps a pretty close calculation for his own operations, but as for giving statistics that can be relied on at the time you are operating, such figures are not as helpful as they might appear on the surface.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with the minister that the cost of production continually fluctuates *with the costs of the elements entering into

Supply-Agriculture
production. I know that studies have been made at various times on the cost of producing wheat and various other products on different sized farms, and the costs vary not only with the method of production but with the quantity of production. But it seems to me that the department should be carrying on a running inventory of costs of production so that it will know from time to time approximately what those costs are. I do not know whether that would be expensive.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be a costly operation.


Percy Ellis Wright: But I think it is a necessary operation if we are to deal intelligently with agriculture. It could be carried on as the minister suggested, in cooperation with the provinces. It seems to me that that particular line of study was not followed very closely during the war. As a matter of fact we could not do it very well because we were too busy with a lot of other matters. It seems to me that the time has now come when the department, either by itself or in cooperation with the provincial department of agriculture, should get into that field again and determine the cost of production. It is interesting not only from the fact that it may be necessary to implement the Agricultural Prices Support Act but also to determine and to give the farmers some idea of the most economical size of unit for them to operate. There is a tremendous field of investigation in this work. It is one of the ways in which we can reduce cost of production in the country.
I would suggest to the minister that this is one place in which some expansion might be made in determining the cost of production. Certainly, if the time comes when it is necessary to implement the Agricultural Prices Support Act, unless the minister has available in the future information that will give to him some idea of what is a fair price he will have quite a time explaining to farmers that the price established is a satisfactory one. The only way he can prove it satisfactorily is by having figures on the cost of production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service
[Stage Direction]
25. Dairy products, $514,340.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have a few questions I should like to ask the minister in regard to this item. Is the dairy inspector who inspects the dairies that supply fluid milk, bottled milk, responsible for the price paid, or is there a standard price that should be paid according to the amount they are getting for their bottled milk, or are they allowed to buy it at whatever price they can get it?


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as the distribution of milk is concerned, as has been stated quite a number of times on the floor of the house-and the last time I remember it was under discussion was a year ago when the hon. member for Haldimand, who, I am sure, we are all sorry is not with us during the discussion, brought out the fact that when this question was investigated at the time of the prices board investigation-it was demonstrated that all matters such as have been referred to, really come under provincial control. The milk boards of the provinces have control over that matter. Investigations with regard to prices are carried on by the provinces or by the local people in some . community where they have a board in charge, but not by Ottawa.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to ask the minister a question about laboratory assistants. There were three last year. They are now done away with and three assistant technicians have been appointed. Are these the same people just receiving an increase in salary? Can the minister tell us something about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a change in the title.


William Scottie Bryce: And an advance in salary.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Before the item carries, I should like to ask a question about the production of cheese thus far this year as compared with the production in 1944, 1945 and 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cheese production in Canada for May, 1946, was 17,000,000 pounds, and for May, 1947, 12,225,000 pounds. The change is downward; it was 28-1 per cent for May. From January to May the production for 1946 was 30,245,000 pounds, and for 1947, 22,830,000 pounds, or a decrease of 24-5 per cent. Of course I think it will be readily agreed that probably it is too early in the season to compare one year with another. It will be noted from these figures that nearly all the production was in May, and there is some question as to whether May was a favourable month for production for this year as was May a year ago. The season is some weeks late this year all across Canada in connection with all production. But I think we would have to be pretty well through June and probably into July before
Supply-Agriculture

we could make a comparison which would indicate clearly just where we are going in that production.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the minister optimistic enough to think there is to be as much production this year as there was last, in view of the fact there are so many cheese factories closed in eastern Ontario. How many cheese factories have been closed in the eastern counties over the past year or two?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no indication at the moment that we are likely to be quite as high in our production this year as we were last year.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has not answered the question as to how many cheese factories have been closed in the eastern counties over the past two years.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but I shall not be able to give them for eastern Ontario. I can give the figures for Ontario. They are not broken down into eastern and western Ontario. The number of cheese factories in 1943, 1944 and 1945-there is nothing later than that; I am sorry, but I shall not be able to give them for the last year-were as follows: in 1943, 561; in 1944, 556; in 1945, 547. I have been given to understand that the decrease has been running at about that rate through 1946 and 1947, but the number of cheese factories is not the complete answer. As is known, since 1939 we have been paying subsidies to encourage the enlargement and improvement of cheese factories. In some instances you have two converted into one; that is, two closed up and one of a larger type opened up and better equipped, so that the decrease as to numbers would not entirely show the picture.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the minister will agree that the decrease in the amount of cheese produced has been just about on a ratio with the number of cheese factories closed. Most of that has been due to the low price of milk for cheese purposes. A lot of milk has been going to the larger cities in the whole milk trade in view of the larger price obtainable for that milk.
Another question is this. In view of the fact that our cheese has been going to the old country in the same form for the last fifty years, 90-pound cheddars, and marked there as an empire product instead of as a Canadian product, and also in view of the fact the New Zealand cheese is going there in small attractive packages, has this government made

an attempt to have the exporters from this country make our cheese a little more attractive to the English consumer?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was one of the efforts made when we did pay the subsidy, to have cheese made up in some factories in a form different from that in which it had been made before. One idea was to standardize the forms in which the cheese was pressed in order to produce cheese more acceptable in form. In addition to that, during the war we carried on investigations as to possible coverings of cheese, cheesecloth, which would make possible the marking of cheese, and today we have cheese going to Britain completely marked with the name "Canada" to distinguish it from what is generally known as empire cheese. That work is being done now as effectively as possible, but it has been completed only within the last few months.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it sold under Canadian auspices in England or sold by British commission men and still sold as empire cheese even though it is marked Canadian?


James Garfield Gardiner: You cannot sell anything in Britain today as anything but a food board product. They do not permit the Danes or anyone else to put up an advertising sign in the country. As a matter of fact, they are all pulled down. People cannot go and ask for any particular kind of any particular food, and the reason is obvious. The food board has great difficulty in securing sufficient food for the people of Britain, and therefore it has entirely ruled out the possibility of people going to a shop and saying they want a particular commodity, whether Canadian cheese or Canadian bacon or Danish cheese or Danish bacon. They simply go and ask for cheese or bacon and they get whatever food the ministry can provide them with. There is no possibility of getting it delivered as anything else.


John Alpheus Charlton: But advertising is not all done on a printed basis. A lot of it is done by word of mouth, and if someone is not fighting for or boosting Canadian cheese, something can be done in that direction.


James Garfield Gardiner: The product is distributed in Britain by the ordinary merchant and he has to take what he gets.


John Alpheus Charlton: We are looking forward to the day when that situation will be changed and we may be able to advertise Canadian cheese. We want people to know what Canadian cheese tastes like.

Supply-Agriculture


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In connection with the production of dairy products, it would be interesting if the minister could tell us the production of butter in 1946 for the same months as in 1947, just as in the case of cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: Creamery butter in May, 1946, was 31,864,000 pounds and, the production for May, 1947, is 31,269,000 pounds. That is, it is down by 1-9 per cent, or almost two per cent.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the Canadian government maintain storage facilities in England for Canadian products, or do we turn over Canadian products to the British food board at the Canadian seaboard?


James Garfield Gardiner: The British food department takes delivery of all our food products at the Canadian port. That was the arrangement made during the war because they assumed all responsibility for shipping, and that has continued. I should have given the figure for the entire period from January to May in 1946 and 1947. It was 81,753,000 pounds for 1946 and 82,563,000 pounds for 1947, which is an increase of about one per cent over the whole period.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Can the minister explain how there is an increase in butter of approximately one per cent and yet a decrease in the manufacture of cheese of twenty-eight per cent in the same month this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is largely explained by what was mentioned a few moments ago, that probably the greater part of the fluid milk comes out of areas where cheese was originally produced1. That may be due to the fact that the cheese area extends from about Three Rivers in Quebec to Ingersoll in Ontario, and all the large cities in Canada are in that area. There is a much larger urban population in that section than in any other, and therefore fluid milk would be taken from those districts to the cities. Much of our butter is produced in western Canada where the population is not nearly as dense as it is in the eastern part and where we do not produce cheese in any event. For that reason the variation will be greater in cheese when you take out the fluid milk.


George Russell Boucher: Can the minister give particulars as to the situation in the manufacture of butter in May, 1946, and May, 1947, in Ontario so that we can make a comparison?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1946, in May, the figure is 7.986,000 pounds, and in 1947, 8,259,000 pounds. That is, butter production is up there. From January through it is also up
considerably. Cheese production in Ontario through the whole area is down and cheese production is down through the whole period from January to May, which, of course, does not bear out the suggestion I was making; nevertheless the cheese is not made anywhere else except in that district. I am quite sure therefore, that the cheese reduction itself is due largely to milk goinig as fluid milk. It is not due to the fact that it is going to that extent into butter.


George Russell Boucher: But if that were so with regard to cheese, would it not be equally so with regard to butter? It seems to me that there is quite an alarming reduction in the manufacture of cheese, particularly in Ontario this year, and that is reflected across Canada by the great decrease in the export of cheese overseas. That being the case, I think it is time, for the sake of the cheese producer in Canada, for the Department of Agriculture to be greatly concerned with the retrograde movement of an industry that is important to Canada. The hon. member for Brant asked certain questions about the advertising of Canadian cheese and the marking of that cheese overseas. Now that the war has been over for two years, and in view of the fact that cheesemaking is a fundamental industry to a great number of farmers who have not the same access to city markets as others, I suggest that the time has come for the department to give serious attention to the cheese industry in Canada and to foster the production of this commodity in every way possible. The facts revealed tonight in that regard are alarming.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the question of advertising, the British will not permit us to advertise at all. We had a large advertising programme on in the last few years before the war. We started it in 1936 and built it up to 1939, but we are not permitted to advertise there at present. The only means of getting advertising there is through news items. The discussion we are having tonight may appear in the newspapers and, if it does, we shall get advertising to that extent. Otherwise we are not allowed to advertise there.
On the other question I should repeat what I said earlier in the discussion. Cheese production is a month late this year because of the nature of the season. That in itself largely accounts for the fact that cheese is down as compared with butter. My hon, friend shakes his head, but I have heard him use the argument time after time since he has been here in the house that price has something to do with this. Everyone admits
Supply-Agriculture

that cheese is higher in price than butter at the present time, and much higher. If price is the only thing that counts, or the return that the farmer can get for it, then cheese production should certainly be higher. But everyone who knows anything about farming in Ontario knows the production season is at least a month late. A month or a month and a half from now we could make a much more valuable comparison than we can at the present time.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the minister state what surplus of butter we have at the present time as compared with what we had a year ago?


George Russell Boucher: Before the minister rises to answer, may I ask him to tell us if the Canadian government has made any representation to the British parliament asking them to permit the advertising of Canadian cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: We know better than to make that representation, because we are told regularly that we cannot d'o so. We have the United Kingdom government's representatives here in Ottawa all the time. As a matter of fact they live in the same building as I do and I see them regularly. We know we cannot advertise is Britain at the present time.


Mr. BURTON:: The minister might go a little farther and state that for a number of years we have not been allowed to advertise.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since the war.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister made the statement that it was only because of the late season there was less cheese production this year.	t


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that was the main reason.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to remind the minister that it is unlikely that as much cheese could be produced with fewer cheese factories in this country; therefore it is not just the late season which has caused the smaller production of cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: A question was asked about storage. On June 1, 1947, the amount in stock was 23,533,331 pounds of butter; and a year ago on the same date the amount was 18,226,957 pounds.


Mr. BLAIR:: While we are talking about the production of cheese and the closing of factories, may I say that in eastern Ontario last year-and that is not taking into account the month of May-twenty-three cheese factories closed up. Very few of those cheese factories amalgamated, and where they were amal-

gamated there was little influence on production because of the long haul to bring the milk to the cheese factory. A number of these factories have gone into other forms of processed milk. So there is no other reason than that for the production of cheese being cut down in eastern Canada. We cannot expect to get as much production when we have twenty-three cheese factories less. I know of several more factories which closed this spring; and several of them, instead of making Cheddar cheese, have gone into making other forms of cheese.


Mr. BRADSHAW:: Will the minister say how much increase there has been in powdered or concentrated milk? Some of our factories in Perth county are closed and some of them are milk powder factories.


James Garfield Gardiner: On condensed milk,
there is 3,104,000 pounds for May, 1946, and 2,801,000 pounds for May, 1947, or a decrease of 9-8 per cent. On the whole period from January to May, the decrease has been a little greater, namely, 10-9 per cent. On evaporated milk the decrease is 0-4 per cent for the month and the increase is 1-8 per cent for the period. On whole milk powder there is a decrease of 3-9 per cent in the month of May and an increase of 6-6 per cent for the whole period from January to May inclusive.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Much has been said about the number of cheese factories being closed. We have had the viewpoints from various members. I should like to have a statement from the minister himself as to the explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have given it twice, and I think that is enough for one night.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I just say to the minister that I hope he will bring strong representations to. bear on the British government with respect to our advertising our own products. In Canada it is true that we are attentive to the possibility for the future, as well as for the present, of the British consumer of our agricultural products. It surely cannot be said that we are not entitled to advertise our own agricultural products in Great Britain. I can understand the viewpoint of the government there when they say they do not wish to encourage more consumption because they have not more to give to their people. At the same time, if you read any British magazine or journal you will find advertised many things which are in short supply. When we supply these foodstuffs largely, if not entirely, at our own expense, at the present time, I find it difficult to under-

House oj Commons
stand why we should be dictated to by the United Kingdom government. As a Canadian, I resent it. I feel that the minister should do everything possible to make sure that we establish our brands for a time when conditions may be more competitive than they are today.


Harry Oliver White: Representations have been made by the Ontario cheese producers' association from time to time. Would the minister state if tihose representations have been implemented as far as possible by his department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the discussions we have had with the cheese producers have been with regard to price, and the negotiations that we have had with Britain have established the price under the contract. We have, of course, not been able to secure as much as any producer I know of thinks he would like to have. Cheese producers are no exception. We have, however, discussed the matter fully with them, and I think they have finally agreed that we are getting all we can expect to get under the circumstances.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: I ask that the item stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 17, 1947