Mr. SPEAKER:: I consider it my duty to inform the house that this morning I received many calls from hon. members complaining of the temperature in this building. Some hon. members suggested to me that under the prevailing conditions there should be no sitting of the house this afternoon. Hon. members will realize that it is for the house itself to decide whether we should sit or not.
I communicated with those who are responsible for the heating of the building and was informed that there had been an accident in the central heating plant, but they hoped that sometime about noon or one o'clock today they would be able to send some steam into the chamber. Just before coming into the house at three o'clock I was told that unfortunately the repairs had not yet been made, and that it would be impossible to heat the building this afternoon. I thought it my duty therefore to bring the facts to the attention of the house. The temperature in this chamber is now about 64 degrees, and in some parts of the building it is only 60.
I thought that before we proceeded with the business of the house hon. members would like to know these facts so that the house might decide whether there should be a sitting this afternoon. Those who have been complaining about the temperature cannot expect any improvement this afternoon.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that it ivould be well if we could have our sittings in Vancouver?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Before the house comes to a hast.% decision as to whether we should sit or not, I should like to make the following statement.
On account of the unduly severe weather that has prevailed during the present week it
was necessary to force the capacity of the plant to the extreme limit, and under such circumstances one boiler failed. The central heating plant is composed of six boilers, all of which are connected to a central manifold, and they have been used and have met the demands imposed upon them even with the additional temporary construction that was put up during wartime. One boiler failed in a minor way at midnight on the 9th, and it was necessary to close this one down to make repairs. While these repairs were under way, the other five boilers were under additional pressure and the second boiler failed after midnight. Both repairs are not what might be considered serious. They can be corrected temporarily, and it is hoped that one boiler will be back on the line in an hour or so, and the other one will be ready by tomorrow morning.
These are circumstances over which we have little or no control as they are brought about by reason of severe weather. While the plant is overhauled between heating seasons, it is found that today the scarcity of materials makes it difficult to replace with new parts the wear and tear that has ordinarily taken place; and, in substitution, wear and tear has been replaced by welding and other processes to tide over until such time as it is possible to make adequate renewals.
At present we have working on the building the Campbell Steel and Iron Works and the staff of the public works department. The last information I received was that during the afternoon we shall have the ordinary temperature in the building.



OLEOMARGARINE


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the fact that we have on the order paper a bill to amend the Dairy Industry Act with regard to oleomargarine. My question is this. Did the
Oleomargarine

government in signing the Geneva trade agreements agree to remove the embargo against the importation of oleomargarine?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been giving special attention to the situation that arises with regard to oleomargarine under the agreements. I would suggest that my colleague reply.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The trade agreements signed1 at Geneva, Mr. Speaker, are being applied provisionally between Canada and the signatories of the protocol of provisional application which is printed1 at page 85 of our document, treaty series 1947, No. 27.
Under that protocol, the signatories are applying parts 1 and 3 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and they are required to apply part 2 only to an extent not inconsistent with existing legislation.
Articles XI and XX of the general agreement are those which deal with the exclusion of prohibitions or restrictions other than duties; they are both in part 2 and there is no obligation to apply them in any way that would require now the modification of existing legislation.
The general agreement itself will not come into force in such manner as to make part 2 a requirement that any signatory modify existing legislation until the thirtieth day following the day on which instruments of acceptance have 'been deposited with the secretary general of the united nations on behalf of governments signatory to the Final Act, the territories of which account for 85 per centum of the total external trade of the territories of the signatories to the Final Act as provided in article XXVI, subsection 5, of the general agreement.
There are twenty-three signatories to that Final Act, and the percentage shares of total external trade to be used under article XXVI to determine when you reach the 85 per cent is stated in annex A-H, which is printed at page 76 of our publication.
It is apt to be some months yet before the requirements of article XXVI for the coming into force of the general agreement shall have been satisfied.
The signatories of the protocol of provisional application are:	Australia, Belgium-
Luxembourg-Netherlands, Canada, Cuba, France, United Kingdom and United States. They are extending to each other the benefits of the concessions negotiated between them respectively and some of them are even extending to each other the benefits of con-

cessions negotiated with countries whose governments have not yet signed the protocol, but they are not bound to do so, and we ourselves have excluded from the provisional application the concessions we negotiated with Norway because Norway has not yet signed the protocol. This was done by order in council P.C. 5270 of December 23, 1947.
The question of the effect of articles XI and XX of the general trade agreement, when it does become binding on the signatories, is now being considered by the Department of Justice. Hon. members will see that the general exclusion of prohibitions or restrictions other than tariff charges or tariff duties is followed by paragraph 2 which declares that those provisions do not apply in certain cases. The effect of the exceptions on such legislation as exists in Canada that would amount to prohibitions is being considered at the present time by the Department of Justice.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister
would permit one other question. From his answer are we to understand that at the moment we are not in the position of having agreed to remove this embargo? And further are we to understand that the minister is not in a position now to say what the final effect of the signing of these agreements is with regard to the embargo on oleomargarine? Is that a correct interpretation of what the minister had to say?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would prefer to put it this way. An agreement has been signed which has not yet come into force. Certain portions of it are being applied under a protocol of provisional application. None of the things which are required by the protocol of provisional application makes it necessary for us to modify any of our legislation. The Department of Justice is studying the question whether, when it does come into effect, the general trade agreement would require us to modify the Dairy Industry Act which deals with oleomargarine or certain tariff provisions which exclude secondhand machinery or commodities. These questions are being studied at the present time by the Department of Justice.


John Bracken: When the agreement does come into effect, the government is in the position that it does not know what position it is in with respect to this particular matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The government
knows that articles XI and XX are the general rules which will apply, but there are exceptions. It is a question on which the government will have to act on its responsi-

Questions
bility after it has received advice from the legal adviser of the government. Under the statute, it will then have to say whether or not it considers that the exceptions affect this provision of the Dairy Industry Act and the provision about the exclusion of secondhand commodities, unless there is agreement to modify these exceptions.
Just a week ago today I had an interesting conversation with our chief representative at the Havana conference, and these two articles are still being debated at Havana. They may remain as they are; they may be modified. Under the exception there is an argument that if there is a non-diseriminatory prohibition affecting an agricultural product, non-discriminatory inasmuch as it applies to Canadians as well as to outsiders, it does not have to be interfered with. That is a possible construction of the exception. Whether or not it is the proper construction of the exception is now being considered by the Department of Justice.


John Bracken: The minister has been dealing with the interpretation of the provisions of this agreement. Might I ask him what was the intention of the government with respect to the embargo on oleomargarine when this agreement was signed?


James Horace King: Order. I should draw to the attention of the leader of the opposition the fact that while it is the practice to ask questions before the orders of the day are called, and while it is sometimes the practice to ask additional questions, it is not the practice to start a debate on the answer given by a minister.


John Bracken: I just wished to be clear as to what the minister was telling us in his answer to my question.



ALLEGED SHORTAGE IN SWIFT CURRENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of a telegram received from the Swift Current fuel dealers' association, advising of a serious fuel shortage there. Will the minister say whether the federal government is doing anything to assist in settling the dispute between the miners and owners in Alberta and British Columbia?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: This particular dispute comes within the jurisdiction of the Alberta government. Recently they appointed a board of
conciliation. That board has made its report, which has been placed before the parties to the dispute that is, district 18, United Mine Workers of America, and the coal operators.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Was there an agreement between the dominion government and the provincial government, in 1938, concerning settler assistance on a colonization plan?
2.	If so, what share of such assistance was to he paid by the dominion government?
3.	Are there any amounts outstanding under the said agreement?
4.	If so, when will the government pay such amounts?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	Yes. An agreement was entered into with the province of Quebec under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act 1936, which provided for a contribution by the dominion to the cost of assisting selected families who would otherwise be in receipt of direct relief to settle upon the land and thereby eventually become self-supporting. This agreement was in effect until March 31. 1910.
2.	One third of all expenditures incurred by the province and any organized municipality up to a total of $1,000 per family assisted. Where a family was selected from an unorganized territory of the province and placed upon the land the maximum dominion contribution was $300 per family.
3.	The dominion government's commitments to the province under the agreement have been met.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


IMMIGRATION CENTRES IN EUROPE
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	On the European continent how many Canadian immigration centres have been established?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	How are these maimed?
4.	Are other stations under contemplation? If so, where?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Five points at which there are regular immigration officers. Nine where immigration matters are attended to by officers of the Department of External Affairs attached to Canadian missions.
2.	Regular immigration officers are stationed at Paris, Brussels, The Hague and Rome.
Questions

Heidelberg, Germany, is the headquarters of the Canadian immigration mission directing the work of teams selecting and examining displaced persons in Germany and Austria. Immigration facilities are provided at the following diplomatic missions: Oslo, Norway; Copenhagen, Denmark; Stockholm, Sweden; Berne, Switzerland; Lisbon, Portugal; Athens, Greece; Prague, Czechoslovakia; Warsaw, Poland; and Moscow, UB.S.R.
3.	At Paris, two immigration officers, one doctor from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and clerical staff. At Brussels, one immigration officer, one doctor from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and clerical staff. At The Hague, three immigration officers, two medical officers from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and clerical staff. At Rome, Italy, one immigration officer, one doctor from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and clerical staff.
The Canadian immigration mission in Germany consists of the immigration officer in charge of mission with clerical staff at Heidelberg. Six immigration inspectors, six medical officers, six special security officers, three interpreters, one immigration woman officer, six selection officers, from the Department of Labour.
At other places listed above, work is performed by officials of the Department of External Affairs.
4.	The need for other stations is constantly under review.


WHEAT PRODUCED AND DELIVERED TO WHEAT BOARD
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	(a) What were the total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in 1945? (b) What were the total bushels of wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board for 1945 as at July 31, 1946?
2.	(a) What were the total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in 1946? (b) What were the total bushels of wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board for 1946 as at July 31, 1947?
3.	(a) What were the total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in 1947? (b) What is the estimate of total bushels of wheat that will be delivered to the Canadian wheat board for 1947 as at July 31, 1948?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	(a) The total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in the crop year 1945-46 were 318,512,000; (b) Deliveries to the Canadian wheat board in that year were 237,297,178 bushels.
2.	(a) The total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in the crop year 1946-47 were 413,725,000; (b) The number of bushels delivered to the Canadian wheat board in that year were 335,108,427.

3.	(a) The total bushels of wheat produced in Canada in the crop year 1947-48 are estimated by the third estimate of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics at 340,767,000; (b) A recent estimate indicates probable deliveries of 270,278,809 bushels of wheat to the Canadian wheat board during the current crop year.



ADVANCES UNDER EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Mc'MASTER:
1.	What is the amount to date of the advances to the countries other than the United Kingdom under section 22 of the Export Credits Insurance Act?
2.	What are the amounts advanced to each individual country?
3.	Was there any agreement with the different countries as to the maintenance of the value of their currency?
4.	W'ere the agreements as to repayment of the loans uniform with the different countries? If not, what were the variations?
Mr. MAYHEM':
1 and 2.	Advances at
Belgium	 S 67,000,000 00
China	
35,288,027	97Czechoslovakia	
13.749.398	36France	
200,725,000	00Netherlands	
104,760,170	SONetherlands	Indies	
11,450,000	00Norway	
19,962,000	00U.S.S.R	
2,866,098	69Total	
$455,800,695 823.	No. The loans are repayable in Canadian dollars or fine gold at the option of the borrowing government-the value of the fine gold to be calculated at the official Canadian buying price.4.	The basic principles applied under the agreements for the repayments of the loans are substantially the same for all countries. The average length of the term of the loans varies and the interest rate varies depending upon the length of the term of the loan.
Copies of all agreements under the Export Credits Insurance Act have been tabled in the House of Commons as appendices to the annual report required! under the act.

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Has a report been submitted to the government in connection with the construction of a bridge or causeway across the strait of Canso?
2.	What is the width of this strait at its narrowest point, and the average depth of the water?
3.	What is the average yearly tonnage crossing this strait during the past ten years, also the average number of passengers carried during said period?

Questions
4.	What is the yearly revenue of the Canadian National Railways in Cape Breton, and the present average yearly cost of maintaining the present railway ferry service?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 2,800 feet, (b) 110 feet.
3.	The Canadian National Railways advise:
(a)	1,615,316 tons, (b) This information
is not segregated for railway purposes and to compile it would involve much clerical labour and expense.
4.	(a) Information as to the revenue of Canadian National Railways in Cape Breton is not compiled. To compile it would involve considerable time and expense, (b) Based on ten years to December 31, 1947, is $357,245.



L. RASMINSKY

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Is L. Rasminsky an employee or officer of the Bank of Canada?
2.	What is his nationality?
3.	What annual salary does he receive from the Bank of Canada?
4.	What is the amount of the travelling or other expenses paid to him since the beginning of the war?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes. Mr. L. Rasminsky is executive assistant to the governors of the Bank of Canada.
2.	Canadian.
3.	Not of government record.
4.	Not of government record except as to amounts paid by the government, which amounts totalled $281.23.



INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT-AMOUNTS PAID TO COMPANIES, INDIVIDUALS AND BANKS

Mr. CAOUETTE:: Of the total interest on the national debt in 1946 and 1947, what amount was paid to loan companies and individuals, and what amount was paid direct to the chartered banks of Canada?


Mr. MAYHEW:: No information. As a large part of the funded debt of Canada is in bearer form, it is not possible to state what amount is held by the loan companies, individuals and the chartered banks of Canada.



MOUNT PLEASANT AIRPORT

Mr. MacNAUGHT:: 1.	Has Mount Pleasant airport (No. 10 B & G. school) been declared surplus?
2.	If so, have any of the buildings or assets been disposed of?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the purchasers and what amount was purchased by each of them?
4.	What are the details of the assets remaining at this airport?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) The department of reconstruction of the province of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, P.E.I. purchased 5 buildings for a total price of $6,481.72.
(b)	The Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Ont. purchased 8 buildings for a total price of $6,319.58.
(c)	Mr. Oscar MacNeill of Conway, P.E.I. purchased one building for a price of $1,500.
4.	Land: 690.14 acres.
Buildings and Services Three (3) Double Landplane Hangars Maintenance Hangar
Building No. 2 Ground Instruction School Building No. 3 Officers' Quarters Building No. 4 Officers' Mess Building No. 5 N.C.O. Quarters Building No. 6 N.C.O. Quarters Building No. 7 N.C.O. Mess Building No. 9 O.R. Quarters Building No. 14 O.R. & N.C.O. Mess Building No. 17 Drill and Recreation Hall Building No. 18 Workshop Building No. 19 Fire Hall Building No. 22 Canteen Building No. 24 Turret Instruction Building Building No. 25 -2 (25 yd. Ranges) Building No. 28 Supply Depot Building No. 29 Stores Building Building No. 30 Coal Storage Compound Building No. 31 Guard House & P.O. Building No. 32 W. & B. Maintenance Section
Building No. 33 Oil and Paint Stores Building No. 34 Watch Office & Control Tower
Building No. 35 M.T. Section Building No. 39 Spotlight Trainer Building No. 40 Incinerator Building No. 41 Supply Depot Building No. 45 Flying Control Signal
E2 Garage; 7 hose reel houses; bulk gasoline storage; incinerator; water storage tank; water storage tank (216,000 gal.); Mo-skeeto range; M.T. gasoline storage (1,000 gal.); fire alarm system; flag staff; fencing, electric power; sewer; water; steam.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per
Questions

month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many veterans of world war I are
included in the figures given in each bracket in question 1?	_
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. (a) 274; (b) 512; (c) 666; (d) 771; (e) 725; (f) 709; (g) 677; (h) 756; (i) 579; (j) 2,210.
2.	No information.
3.	Prince Edward Island, 38; Nova Scotia, 342; New Brunswick, 139; Quebec, 1,316; Ontario, 3,566; Manitoba, 320; Saskatchewan, 176; Alberta, 317; British Columbia, 1,349.



EXCESS PROFITS TAX-REFUNDS

Mr. IRVINE:: What is the total excess profits tax which
(a)	has been refunded to private corporations;
(b)	is refundable?


Mr. WINTERS:: (a) and (b). The accounting records of the taxation division are not maintained in such manner as to indicate the
amount of excess profits tax refundable to private corporations, as distinct from the amount refundable to public corporations.
As of the 31st March, 1947, the liability of the government for refundable portion of excess profits tax to all corporations (whether private or public) was estimated at S250,-000,000, of which amount S303 has been refunded to date.



INDUSTRY OPERATED BY COAL, ELECTRICITY AND FUEL OIL

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What proportion of industry in Canada is
operated by (a) steam, produced from coal; (b) electrical energy produced by hydro; (c) fuel oil?	....
2.	By provinces, what proportion of industry is operated by (a) steam, produced from coal; (b) electrical energy produced by hydro; (c) fuel oil?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2. The sizes of industries are not capable of measurement by any one unit but the rating of power equipment will give an approximation of the relative sizes from a power aspect.
Ratio of H.P. Rating of Power Equipment of each Class to Total Rating of Equipment Installed in
Manufacturing Industries, 1944
Province	Steam	Oil	Hydraulic	Steam engines and turbines A	Electric motors operated with power purchased from central electric stations (1) B	Total C=(A+B)	Internal com- bustion engines (4) D	Hydraulic turbines and water wheels E	Electric motors operated with power purchased from central electric stations (1) F	Total G=(E+F)p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.Prince Edward Island	26-5	23-2	49-7	20-5	29-2	0-6	29-8Nova Scotia	36-5	20-8	57-3	8-1	7-7	26-9	34-6New Brunswick	32-7	12-5	45-2	5-2	11-0	38-6	49-6Quebec	9-4	(2)	9-4	2-7	14-2	73-7	87-9Ontario	15-4	(2)	15-4	3-8	91	71-7	80-8Manitoba	10-3	0-2	10-5	50	0-5	84-0	84-5Saskatchewan	25-7	52-9	78-6	21-4	(3)	-Alberta	21-9	37-6	59-5	12-9	0-4	27-2	27-6British Columbia	25-5	2-9	28-4	7-8	18-3	45-5	63-8Yukon and N.W.T	9-6	1-6	11-2	88-8	"	~	~Canada	15-7	1-8	17-5	4-5	11-3	66-7	78-0(1)	The total capacity of electric motors operated with power purchased from central electric stations has been divided here between steam engines and hydraulic turbines on basis of power generated by thermal and hydraulic equipment in central electric stations.(2)	Less than a tenth of one per cent.(3)	One hydraulic plant close to the Manitoba border is included in Manitoba where the power is used.(4)	Internal combustion engines are operated almost exclusively with gasoline and oil.

Questions



REGISTRATION OF GREYHOUND RACING STOCK

Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will the Department of Agriculture be responsible for the registration of greyhound racing stock as the department is now responsible for the registration of race horses?
Mr. MeCUBBIN: The Department of Agriculture will not be responsible for the registration of greyhound racing stock any more than it is now responsible for the registration of race horses, as such. The function of the department in regard to registration consists in the examination and approval of certificates of registration duly issued by a breed association affiliated with Canadian national livestock records. Eligibility for registration is determined by the ancestry of the individual animal through several generations of breeding, not by its use for racing purposes.



INCOME TAX-CHARTERED BANKS-ALLOWANCE FOR COST OF PUBLISHING ANNUAL STATEMENTS

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Are chartered banks allowed a deduction for income tax purposes with respect to costs incurred in advertising their annual statements?
2.	Are such deductions allowed when said annual statements include political propaganda?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Chartered banks, in common with other corporations, are permitted to deduct from gross revenue all reasonable operating expenses before arriving at net taxable income. Advertising is considered to be an operating expense.
2.	See No. 1 above.



DISTILLING AND BREWING INDUSTRY-INVESTMENT IN NEW PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much capital has been invested in each of the last five years in providing new plant and equipment in (a) the distilling industry; (b) the brewing industry?


George James McIlraith: Capital Expenditures on New Plant and Equipment, 1942 to 1946
New buildings New machinery
	and other	and
	structures	equipment
	$	$
Distilleries-		
1942 ....	568,000	470,0001943 ....	254,000	564,0001944 ....	593,000	648,0001945 ....	1,858,000	586,0001946 ....	2,872,000	1,134,000Breweries-	1942 ....	268,000	713,0001943 ....	70,000	237,0001944 ....	90,000	426,0001945 ....	790,000	1,225,0001946 ....	2,197,000	3,327,000



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947-ORDERS IN COU.NCIL REPEALED OR AMENDED

Mr. FLEMING:: What orders in council specified in the schedule to the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, have been (a) repealed; (b) amended, and on what dates and by what orders?


Mr. JEAN:: Revocations:
Dept, of Agriculture	Revoked by
P.C.	5424	14/7/44	Agricultural food board regulations respecting recovery of subsidies.	P.C. 5040	8/12/47P.C. Civil	6759 6/11/45 The repayment of subsidy (agricultural products) regulations. Service Commission	P.C. 5040	8/12/47P.C.	854 li	1/11/41	Preference respecting appointments to civil service ex-service men of present war as amended by P.C. 4320, 20/6/45.	P.C. 4632	12/11/47P.C.	15/1647	9/3/45	"Veterans preference" respecting appointments to the civil service-service on the high seas in a sea-going ship of war.	P.C. 4632	12/11/47P.C.	16/1647	9/3/45	"Veterans preference" respecting appointments to the civil service-not applicable certain classes in naval forces.	P.C. 4632	12/11/47P.C.	20/6173	21/9/45	Civil service war service preference-certain persons excluded, as amended by P.C. 29/1046, 22/3/46.	P.C. 4632	12/11/47P.C.	30/7500	29/12/45	"Veterans preference" respecting appointments to the public service as amended by P.C.	P.C. 4632	12/11/47
19/3727, 5/9/46.

Questions
Department of Finance
P.C. 394	20/1/42 Anthracite coal-importation exempted from
customs duty, as extended by P.C. 3472, 28/4/42.
P.C. 9058	6/10/42 Bagging material, etc.-importation exempt
from customs duty.
Department of Fisheries
P.C. 6289	6/8/43 Regulations for control of salt fish and appointments thereunder.
Dept, of Mines and Resources
P.C. 7167	15/9/43 Reserves to the crown radio-active substances
in Yukon Territory.
P.C. 7168	15/9/43 Reserves to the crown radio-active substances
in Northwest Territories.
Dept, of National Defence
P.C. 6638	23/10/45	Post-discharge benefits to the members of the armed forces serving in an interim force.P.C. 3617	27/8/46	Naval, military and air force estates regulations, 1046.P.C. 349	31/1/47	Regulations respecting claims by or against the crown involving members of the naval, military or air forces of Canada (overseas).P.C. 363	31/1/47	Consolidated regulations respecting salvage services by H.M.C. ships.Dept of National Health and Welfare	P.C. 6367	10/8/43	Old age pensions.P.C. 8341	28/10/43	Old age pensions.P.C. 3377	29/5/44	Old age pensions.P.C. 6500	18/8/44	Old age pensions.Dept, of Transport	P.C. 3306	9/8/46	Merchant seamen out-of-work allowance regulations.
Wartime Prices and Trade Board Amendments:
P.C. 5518	16/3/43 Repayment of subsidy order.
Revoked by P.C. 5085	11/12/47
P.C. 5085	11/12/47
P.C. 4976	3/12/47
P.C. 5282	30/12/47
P.C. 5282	30/12/47
P.C. 5085	11/12/47
P.C. 5005	8/12/47
P.C. 5005	8/12/47
P.C. 5005	8/12/47
P.C. 3644	9/9/47
P.C. 5085	11/12/47
P.C. 3644	9/9/47
P.C. 5085	11/12/47
P.C. 4930	3/12/47
amended by:
P.C. 4815	26/11/47
revokes sub-sections
(2)	and (3) of section 4 and renumbers sections (4), (5) and (6) of such section as (2),
(3)	, and (4) respectively.



OTTAWA FEDERAL BUILDINGS-EMERGENCY HOUSING

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What buildings have the federal government made available to the city of Ottawa for emergency housing purposes?
2.	Which of these buildings were sold to the city, and for what amount in each instance?

3.	Which are leased by the city from the federal government, and at what rental?
4.	What expenditures were made in altering these shelters for family accommodation? What share of this expenditure did the federal government bear?
5.	Does the federal government share with the city of Ottawa costs of administration?
6.	If so, how much, and on which housing shelters?

Questions


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Ex. H.M.CjS. Wallis House, 589 Rideau street.
Wolseley House, 381 Stewart street.
Ex. H.M.C.S. Hardy House, 443 Daly avenue.
Freiman House, 159 Somerset street.
Argyle barracks, buildings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Uplands airport, buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 35, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 D, E and F.
Roekcliffe airport, buildings 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 118.
2.	None of the above mentioned buildings has been sold to the city of Ottawa.
3.	The buildings listed in answer to question No. 1 above are leased to the corporation of the city of Ottawa for a nominal rental, except that in the case of Argyle barracks, the city reimburses the crown in respect to land rental paid to the owner of the land.
4.	With respect to Hardy House, 443 Daly avenue and Wolseley House, 381 Stewart street, all conversion costs were borne by the corporation of the city of Ottawa and detailed information is not a matter of government record. The cost of conversion re Freiman House, 159 Somerset street and Argyle barracks, was 811,457.42 toward which the federal government contributed $7,500. The cost of converting Ex. H.M.C.S. Wallis House, 589 Rideau street, was approximately $4,000 toward which the federal government contributed $2,000. In view of the fact that the Roekcliffe and Uplands projects are located outside the municipality of Ottawa, the total cost of conversion will be borne by the federal government. The contracts for these projects are not yet completed but it is estimated that Roekcliffe will cost approximately $168,000 and Uplands $353,000.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to question No. 5.



SUGAR-AGREEMENT WITH SANTO DOMINGO

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ISNOR-
1.	Has Canada entered into an agreement with Santo Domingo to purchase sugar?
2.	If so, what is the rate per hundred weight f.o.b. Montreal?
3.	What steps have been taken to assure such sugar being landed at the port of Halifax during the winter months?
Robert Wellington Mayhew: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
1.	No. Purchases are made by the United Kingdom for joint U.K.-Canada account.
2.	The price is 5c lb. (U.S.) f.o.b. Santo Domingo, equivalent to approximately 5.57c lb. c.i.f. Montreal.
3.	Total winter imports from Santo Domingo of sugar for Montreal will be about 3600 tons all of which has been booked for transshipment via Halifax.



RURAL POSTMASTERS

Mr. ISNOR:: What amount would it annually increase the cost to the country if the present minimum allowance for rural postmasters was raised from the one hundred dollars ($100) grant to that of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) per annum?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: $109,019 per annum, on the basis of last year's revenue and this year's payments.



R.C.A.F.-PAULSON, MAN., BOMBING AND GUNNERY SCHOOL

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	Have any of the buildings, other than hangars, at No. 7 bombing and gunnery school at Paulson, Manitoba, been declared surplus?
2.	If so, which buildings and on what dates?
3.	Have any of the above been sold?
4.	If so, to whom, on what dates and at what prices?
5.	What was the original cost of each building in each case?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On June 11, 1947, the following buildings were declared surplus:
Building No. 2-Headquarters.
Building No. 8-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 9-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 10-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 11-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 12-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 13-O. R. quarters.
Building No. 14-O. R. mess.
Building No. 16-Recreation building.
Building No. 17-'Large canteen.
Building No. 18-Small canteen.
Building No. 19-Hospital-25 bed (hospital 16 beds added later).
Building No. 20-Recreation hall.
Building No. 21-Drill hall.
Building No. 22-Guard house and post office.
Building No. 23-Garage	(motor trans.
sect.)
Building No. 24-Garage (8 car).
Building No. 25-Garage (4 car).
Building No. 26-Repair shop.
Building No. 27-Supply depot.
Building No. 28-Work shop.
Building No. 29-A. M. L. teacher.
Building No. 30-Turret range.
Building No. 31-Spotlight trainer.
Building No. 32-Gas chamber.
Building No. 33-Watch office.
1G9S
Questions

Building No. 34-25 yard range and stop butt.
Building No. 35-Dental clinic.
Building No. 36-W & B section.
Building No. 37-Fire station.
Building No. 33-0. R. quarters (WD).
Building No. 39-Bomb stores (type C).
Building No. 40-Detonator stores (type F).
Building No. 41-Fusing hut and bomb store.
Building No. 42-Pyrotechnic store (type B).
Building No. 44-Oil and paint stores.
Building No. 45-Depot service garage.
Building No. 47-NCO quarters.
Building No. 48-OR quarters.
Building No. 49-Stores.
Building No. 50-Spotlight trainer.
Building No. 51-Sewage disposal.
Building No. 52-Water tanks and pump house.
Building No. 53-Chapel.
Building No. 54-Synthetic trainer, coal shed, bulk gasoline storage, loading platform, hose houses, incinerator, skating rink, flag staff, security guard accom., coal storage bins.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Oil Industries Supply Limited, 224 Curry building, Winnipeg, Manitoba, November 1, 1947, bulk gasoline storage, $2,600.
(b)	St. Paul's Home for the Aged and Infirm, Dauphin, Manitoba, November 10, 1947, No. 35, dental clinic, $500; No. 47, N.C.O. quarters, $2,200; total, $2,700.
(c)	Town of Dauphin, Manitoba, November 18, 1947, No. 48, O.R. quarters, $4,999.44.
(d)	Village of Gilbert Plains, Manitoba, December 4, 1947, hose reel houses, skating rink, No. 44 oil and paint stores, No. 17 large canteen, No. 14 O.R. quarters, No. 19 hospital (25-beds), No. 23 garage (MT sect.), No. 24 garage (8-car), No. 25 garage (4-car), $9,918.14.
All buildings sold for removal from site.
5.	The original costs of the buildings set forth in the answer to question No. 4 above
are as follows:
(a)	Bulk gasoline storage	$ 12,647.00
(b)	Building No. 35-
dental clinic	 4,114.10
Building No. 47-
NCO quarters	 22,148.60

(c)	Building No. 48-
O.R. quarters	$ 62,492.94
(d)	Building No. 14-
O.R. quarters	 48,262.70
Building No. 17-
large canteen	 11,933.80
Building No. 19-
hospital	 53,543.51
Building No. 23-[DOT]
g;arage (M.T. sect.)	 1,996.77
Building No. 24-[DOT]
garage (8-car)	 4.020.54
Building No. 25-
garage (4-car)	 1,996.77
Building No. 44-
oil and paint stores	 1,005.85
Hose reel houses	 742.00
Skating rink	 475.00



$ 123,976.94 POSTAL SERVICE-AIR MAIL

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has consideration been given to the sending of all first-class mail matter between distant points in Canada by air mail? If so, wliat action has been, taken in the matter?
2.	Have any steps been taken to reduce Canadian air mail postage rates? If so, what has been done in this regard?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Consideration is being given constantly to improvements in the postal service. As regards carriage of all first-class mail by air, no definite action has yet taken place.
2. There has been no	reduction	in the
domestic air mail postage	rate but reductions	
and modifications have been made		in international air mail rates as	follows:	
	Former	Present
	rate	rate
	per i oz.	per I oz.
Country	cents	centsUnited Kingdom and Europe 	. 30	15Africa, Asia and Oceania.	. 50	25Hawaii 	. 35	15Guam 	. 65	25Philippines 	. 75	25China 	per i oz . 60	25South America 	. 15 to 25	10



VETERANS' PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What is the total number of veterans at present receiving pensions for (a) 109 per cent disability; (b) 95-99 per cent; (c) 99-94 per cent; (d) 85-89 per cent; (e) 89-84 per cent; (f)



194S

[Stage Direction]
Questions
75-79 per cent; (g)	70-74 per cent; (h)
65-69 per cent; (i) 60-4J4 per cent; (j) 55-59 per cent; (k) 50-54 per cent; (1) 45-49 per cent; (m) 40-44 per cent; (n) 35-39 per cent; (o) 30-34 per cent; (p) 25-29 per cent; (q) 20-24 per cent; (r) less than 20 per cent?
2.	What is the present monthly liability 'with regard to veterans' pensions?
3.	How many veteran pensioners are above the rank of army lieutenant or equivalent rank?
4.	How many veterans are in receipt of war veterans' allowances?
5.	What is the present number of veteran students who are recipients of training! allowances from the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Mr. GREGG:: Return at	December	31, 1947:	World	World	BothWar I	War II	Wars(a) 	3,683	3,482	7,165(b) 	86	20	106(c) 	435	266	701(d) 	392	110	502(e) 	3.094	1,282	4,376(f) 	647	353	1,000(g) 	1,403	951	2,354(h) 	339	190	529(i) 	2,218	2,092	4,310(j) 	357	287	644(k) 	3,771	2,888	6,659(1) 	421	407	828(m) 	3,614	3.280	6,894(n) 	1,706	1,102	2,808(o) 	4,541	4,584	9,125(P) 	4,394	3,674	8,068(q) 	8,306	11,051	19,357(r) 	30,329	46,976	77,305Total ....	69,736	82,995	152,731
2. Return at December 31, 1947:
World War World War
I	II	TotalDisability	$2,133,758	$2,026,750	$4,160,508Dependent 882,429	947,356	1,829,785Total ....$3,016,187	$2,974,106	$5,990,2933.	Return at December 31, 1947: world war I, 3,642 (approx.); world war II, 6,511 (approx.); total, 10,153 (approx.).4.	Return at December 31, 1947 : 26,106 (not including 4,790 widows, 86 orphans, and 487 beneficiaries receiving war veterans' allowance for a period not exceeding twelve months after death of recipient).5.	Return at January 31, 1948: in university training, 33,063; in vocational training. 15,087.



TRADE WITH SPAIN

Mr. DORION:: What was the value in Canadian dollars, for each of the last twelve years, of our imports and exports with Spain?


George James McIlraith: External Trade with Spain:
Calendar year	Imports	Exports1936 	
$1,129,315	$469,1601937 	
939,555	3,6381938 	
793,307	100,9381939 	
662,516	210,8191940 	
1,110,777	346,8241941 	
519,766	239,6791942 	
406,270	10,6091943 	
907,708	169,0211944 	
3,024,203	89,8011945 	
4,353,475	991,5871946 	
4,484,445	695,0451947 	
3.003,000	940,594



CANADA AND SPAIN-DIPLOMATIC AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Frédéric Dorion: What are at present (a) the diplomatic relations; (ib) the commercial relations, between Canada and Spain?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
(a)	Canada has no diplomatic relations with Spain.
(b)	A Canadian trade commissioner, Mr. L.
S.	Glass, was appointed1 on November 28, 1945, as trade commissioner to Portugal and his territory includes also Spain, the Azores, Madeira, Spanish Morocco, the Canary islands and Gibraltar. An agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain signed June 27, 1924, regulating the treatment of companies, and; a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and Spain signed October 31, 1922 (revised April 5, 1927), were accepted on behalf of Canada as from August 1, 1928 (Canada treaty series, 1928, No. 7).



WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many policies have been issued under the War Risk Insurance Act?
2.	Have there been any losses claimed?
3.	If so, what has been the total amount paid out for losses under this act?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	34,082.
2.	Yes.
3.	$35,198.32.
Questions



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mr. DORION:: 1.	What was the amount paid for family allowances in each province (a) for the year 1945; (b) for the year 1940; (e) for the year 1947?
2.	What was the number of children below the age of 16, in each province (a) for the year 1945; (b) for the year 1946; (c) for the year 1947?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Province	(a)	1945
Prince Edward Island	 $ 1,079,198
Nova Scotia	 6296,918
New Brunswick	 5,360,797
Quebec	 38,155,282
Ontario	 32,456,285
Manitoba	 6.581,480
Saskatchewan	 8,732,554
Alberta	 8,139,827
British Columbia		 7,042,009
Yukon and Northwest Territories	103,179
Province	(b)	1946
Prince Edward Island	 $ 2,183,638
Nova Scotia	 13,177,027
New Brunswick	 11,211,787
Quebec	 80,990,009
Ontario	 68,791,236
Manitoba	 13,750,308
Saskatchewan	 17,990,140
Alberta	 16,887,463
British Columbia		 15,172,753
Yukon and Northwest Territories	299,998
Province	(c)	1947
Prince Edward Island	 S 2,241,302
Nova Scotia	 14,153,047
New Brunswick	 11,993,688
Quebec	 87,097,709
Ontario	 76,772,375
Manitoba	 14,779,445
Saskatchewan	 18,555,711
Alberta	 18,111,382
British Columbia		 17,625,787
Yukon and Northwest Territories	441,816
2.	The number	of children under the age
of sixteen, in receipt of family allowances, in each province, averages as follows:
Province	(a) 1945
Prince Edward Island	 30,015
Nova Scotia	 173,554
New Brunswick	 152,170
Quebec	 1,069,492
Ontario	 885,491
Manitoba	 178,406
Saskatchewan	 241,610
Alberta	 224,091
British Columbia		 195,697
Yukon and Northwest Territories..	2,534

Province	(b) 1946
Prince Edward Island	 30,587
Nova Scotia	 184,271
New Brunswick	 158,882
Quebec	 1,144,938
Ontario	 949,251
Manitoba	 188,546
Saskatchewan	 249,068
Alberta	 232,733
British	Columbia	
209,789Yukon	and Northwest	Territories..	3,861Province	(c) 1947Prince Edward Island	
31,458Nova Scotia	
198,237New Brunswick	
170,418Quebec	
1,237,637Ontario	
1,065,290Manitoba	
204,878Saskatchewan	
257,034Alberta	,	
249,904British	Columbia	
247,183Yukon	and Northwest	Territories..	6,254



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT-BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	How many are employed in the Royal Canadian Mint?
2.	What percentage of these are bilingual? Mr. MAYHEW:
1.	285.
2.	112.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL BOARD

Mr. KIDD:: 1.	Who are the members of the foreign exchange control board?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	What salary does each member receive?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. Section 11 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act which came into force on January 1,	1947, provides that "The foreign
exchange control board shall consist of the persons who from time to time hold or are acting in the offices of governor of the Bank of Canada, deputy minister of finance, Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, deputy minister of trade and commerce, director of operations, Post Office Department and deputy minister of national revenue for customs and excise." The present holders of these positions (who have held office since January 1, 1947), are G. F. Towers, W. C. Clark, L. B. Pearson, M. W. Mackenzie, L. Germain and D. Sim, respectively.
Section 11 (3) provides that "The governor of the Bank of Canada shall be chairman of

Questions
the board" and section 11 (4) provides that "The governor in council may at any time and from time to time appoint an alternate to act in the place and stead of any member of the board and the alternate shall have the same powers when so acting as the member." The following alternates have been appointed, effective from the date indicated: L. Ras-minsky, chairman (alternate) January 1, 1947 and A. Lalonde, alternate to the director of operations, Post Office Department, January 23, 1947.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Section 11 (2) provides that "The members of the board shall serve in that capacity without remuneration."



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-OIL AND WATER COLOUR PAINTINGS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has the national film board a department in which oil and water colour paintings are made?
2.	What use is made of these pictures?
3.	How many pictures have been painted during 1947?
4.	How many pictures have been sold?
5.	What are total proceeds from these sales?
6.	How many of these pictures are in storage?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	No. It is presumed that this question does not refer to art work required for titles in film, filmstrips, animated films or photographic displays. No paintings in oil or water colours are made for exhibition or sale by the national film board.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	4, 5, and 6. None.



STONY MOUNTAIN, MAN.-GRANT FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES

Mr. MOORE:: 1.	Is there a money grant by the Department of Justice to the province of Manitoba for school purposes in the federal district of Stony Mountain?
2.	If so, how much is the grant?


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	S2.550 per annum.



OWEN SOUND TRANSPORT COMPANY


Mr. MENARY:: 1.	Does the government pay a subsidy to the Owen Sound Transportation Company?
2.	If so, what amount do they pay?
3.	Is any assistance given to shipping companies at the ports on the great lakes for the construction of neiv boats?
4.	If so, to what companies is assistance given and what amount to each?


Mr. CIIEVRIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	865,000 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by question No. 3.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How much unemployment insurance has been collected in the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, since the act was inaugurated?
2.	How much unemployment insurance has been paid out in the city of Halifax since the act was inaugurated?
3.	Can unemployment credits be taken from one part of a district and paid out in another part of a district?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	Information not available.
2. Fiscal year 1941-42-information not available.
(Benefit payments started in February, 1942)
Fiscal year
1942- 43	S 1,048 47
1943-	44	
1,184	171944-	45	
2,18S	681945-	46	
69,314	891946-	47	
415,937	001947-	48 to Dee. 31, 1947	
538,490	59Total	$1,028,163 803.	Yes.



CONFERENCE ON WELFARE AND REHABILITATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Have any plans been made by the Department of Labour or any other federal department to call a conference for the purpose of discussing the welfare and rehabilitation of handicapped persons in Canada?
2.	If so, will it be called this year?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1 and 2. On 26th August, 1947, committee of privy council, on my recommendation, approved order in council P.C. 2961 granting permission for the Department of Labour to hold a national conference to consider the vocational rehabilitation of physically handicapped persons. Under the terms of this order in council the conference was to be attended by delegates nominated by private organizations working on behalf of physically handicapped, as well as representatives of the dominion and provincial governments.
The order in council set the dates for the conference in the month of October but plans could not be completed and it was necessary to defer arrangements for the conference until
Orders for Returns

December. In view of the decision to call parliament into session on December 5, it was again considered necessary to postpone the conference as it was felt that many of those persons interested in vocational rehabilitation of physically handicapped persons would not be able to devote sufficient time to the conference while parliament is in session.
In the meantime, officials of various branches of the Department of Labour are continuing to study the matter of vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WINKLER:: From 1915 until the present time, what were (1) the advances; (2) the reductions in the excise tax on cigarettes, cigars and tobacco?


Robert Henry Winters: Return tabled.


INCOME TAX-RETURNS ON WHICH ASSESSMENTS NOT MADE
Donald Methuen Fleming: At December 31, 1947, on how many income tax returns, by years, and by divisonal offices, had assessments not been made?


Robert Henry Winters: Return tabled.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-SEIZURE OF FUNDS AT BORDER
Mr. KIDD:: 1.	What is the total amount in dollars of American or Canadian bonds, securities, bank notes, coin or travellers cheques seized by the customs officials at Lansdowne since the opening of the international bridge?
2.	From whom were the seizures made, the amount taken from each individual and how much returned to each individual, if any?
3.	What is the total amount in dollars of American or Canadian bonds, securities, bank notes, coin or travellers cheques seized by the customs officials at each of the other customs offices in Canada, the amount seized from each individual, the name of the individual from whom the seizure was made and the amount returned to each individual, if any, since September, 1939?


POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many post office buildings have been constructed by the government since January 1, 1945?
2.	Where, and when were they built?
3.	What was the (a) gross;_ (b) net, revenue from these post offices at the time new construction was commenced?


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES, WINNIPEG
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What federal government offices, branches or bureaux are maintained at Winnipeg, Manitoba ?
2.	What is the street address of each?
3.	What is the function of each?
4.	Who is in charge of each?


RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What are the names and occupations of persons employed by the federal government in the Riding Mountain national park?
2.	What are the present salaries or wages of the above?
3.	Did they receive any increases in salary or wages since January 1, 1945? If so, in what amounts, and at what dates?


WAR ASSETS-ACADIA OVERSEAS FREIGHTERS LIMITED  PURCHASE OF SHIPS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Did Acadia Overseas Freighters Limited acquire ships from the Canadian government or War Assets Corporation?
2.	If so, when and how many ships were so acquired; and of what kind and tonnage were they?
3.	What were the terms of payment and the price?
4.	When was the price paid?
5.	What persons' negotiated the sale or sales on each side?
6.	Was there a public offering of the ships for sale and, if so, on what terms?
7.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of the ships and, if so, on what terms?
8.	Were any other offers received for the ships, or any of them, except from the Acadia Overseas Freighters Limited?
9.	How did the vendor arrive at the price?
10.	When was Acadia Overseas Freighters Limited incorporated, and what is .its authorized and issued capital?
11.	Who were its officers and directors at the time of the purchase or purchases, and who. are its officers and directors now?
12.	Is Harry Mathers a Canadian citizen?
13.	What is the registry of these ships now? Has the registry been changed?
14.	What undertaking, if any, has been given by Acadia Overseas Freighters Limited, as to.
(a)	operation of the ships; (b) resale; (c) or otherwise ?


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY- SECURITIES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	As at September 1, 1939, what was the total value of Canadian Pacific securities of all kinds held in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and other countries?
2.	What is the total value of Canadian Pacific securities of all kinds held in the above noted countries as at the present time?
3.	Have any Canadian Pacific securities held in the United Kingdom been acquired by the government of the United Kingdom? If so, what is the value of such securities so acquired?


194S
[Stage Direction]
Business oj the House
4.	What is .the total value of Canadian Pacific securities returned to Canada from the United Kingdom since September 1, 1939, and what disposition, has been made of any such securities returned to Canada?
5.	Did the Canadian government acquire any Canadian Pacific securities following world war I?. If so, to what extent were such securities acquired, and to what extent are such securities still in the possession of the Canadian government ?
6.	Does the Canadian government hold any Canadian. Pacific securities other than those acquired following world war I?

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the total value of military supplies, ammunition, and equipment exported from Canada for the calendar year 1947?
2.	To what countries were such military supplies, ammunition and equipment exported?
3.	What was the value of such exports to each country?


CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS
Mr. KNIGHT:: .
1.	Who ,is the official responsible for the censorship of books entering Canada?
2.	Is his appointment on a permanent or a temporary basis?
3.	Is free entry permitted for text books on school or university curricula and books ordered by a library?
4.	If so, is there .a similar concession- for other non-fiction, or reference books of a learned character imported by teachers or professors for their own use?
5.	If not, has the government considered making such concession?
G. What was the approximate revenue derived by the government during the last fiscal year from the duties on- books (not including magazines or periodicals) ?
7.	How many books were refused admission to Canada during that period?


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-ACQUISITION OF GUARANTEED SECURITIES    INVESTMENT OF CANADIAN FUNDS FROM SALE OF U.S. DOLLARS
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 1.	How many securities of or guaranteed by the dominion of Canada and having a maturity date longer than five years have been acquired by or on behalf of the government of Canada or any agency thereof in each of the six months prior to February 1, 1948?
2.	(a) Is the total of Canadian funds received by the F.E.C.B. as the result of the sale of U.S. dollars during 1947 still in -the possession of the board or has any part of such amounts been repaid to the receiver-general?
(b)	How has the F.E.C.B. invested any balance of such Canadian funds remaining in its hands?


NAVAL SERVICE-FUEL OIL
Mr. MOORE:: _ 1. What was the cost per ton of fuel oil used in H.M.C. ships at the following points in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945: Esquimalt, Halifax; St. Johns, Newfoundland; Bermuda and Londonderry, Ireland?
2. What is the cost per ton of fuel oil being used in H.M.C. ships at Canadian ports, at the present time?
NATIONAL DEFENCE (ARMY)-BRITISH COLUMBIA *-UNIT PRICE OF CERTAIN FOOD ITEMS, 1939-47


Mr. MacINNIS:: What was the unit price paid by the Department of National Defence (Army) in the British Columbia region for the food items in the cost of living index as at (a) August, 1939; (b) November. 1941; (c) November, 1945; (d) December, 1947?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Prime Minister if notices of motion for the production of papers might be taken up also? They are usually taken after the questions. That was not done last week, and I wondered if the government would be prepared to go on with them today.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no reason why they should not be taken up hereafter, but I am not certain that we are prepared to proceed with notices of motion today. They will be taken up next Wednesday.


Gordon Graydon: There is quite an. accumulation of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
house proceeds with the special order, so there may be no misunderstanding about the proceedings tomorrow and the day following, I understand that last evening the question was raised as to whether or not hon,. gentlemen opposite would- be agreeable to having tomorrow given over to the emergency measure, and Friday to the debate on the address. I understand there is agreement to that effect. That being so I would say that tomorrow the government will continue with consideration of the measure which was discussed yesterday, and on Friday will take up the debate on the address.


John Bracken: The understanding is that instead of proceeding as had been- planned originally, tomorrow and Friday we will reverse the program.


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is right.


John Bracken: That is quite satisfactory.
The Address-Mr. Gillis



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: 
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Was that a correct statement?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know; but I know this-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Do you question the accuracy of it?

The Address-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Gillis: I do not know anything about it. But if it is on a par with the statement issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then it leaves a question in my mind whether it will relieve the situation which I know exists down there.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You know nothing whatever about it.


Clarence Gillis: And I do not think you know much about it, either.
I have in my hand a further clipping with respect to the longshoremen's union, which presides over the wages and destiny of men employed on the waterfront. In fact in the final analysis they keep that city going; they are the wage earners. They say: "Worst in twenty years; nothing being done; no immediate solution."
I have another clipping from Halifax, dated February 6, headed "Unemployed now need assistance," and stating that Halifax has 4,500 jobless who may ask their provincial and civic governments that unemployment relief be instituted immediately. That statement is issued by the director of the workers' federation at that point. I have read press dispatches emanating from Halifax and I do not believe any good purpose is served for the people in that part of the country if the rest of the people of Canada are asked to believe that things are fine down there, and that there is nothing wrong. I know they are not fine. They leave much to be desired. Something has to be done in that part of the country, and done very soon, if those people are to continue to support our present institutions. They are getting anything but a square deal from us.
The point I am making is that the unemployment situation prevailing in that part of Canada today is not new. The fact of the matter is it was anticipated in 1942. The senior member for Halifax was a member of the reconstruction committee.


Mr. MARTIN:: A good member.


Clarence Gillis: I am not saying anything about that; I leave that for you to say. All members are good; they do the best they can, with whatever little ability God gave them- and some have not much. I said it was anticipated by that committee, and that the committee was a good one. It was a fact-finding committee like the one on prices. It will go out with a miner's rod looking for profiteers. That committee was a good one and I enjoyed working on it. I think it really did a job because it dug out a lot of facts and served many industries. The committee came back to this house and made a report. It had the power to recommend, something the present
prices committee has not got; it is set up merely to gather something which will collect dust in the archives.
The Journals of the House of Commons, 1943-44, contain the recommendations of that committee on the subject I am talking about now. I want to put those recommendations on the record, in order to show that the unemployment situation now prevailing in the maritimes was anticipated by the government and acted upon by that reconstruction committee. I should like to quote from the recommendations of the committee with respect to the maritimes, to be found on page 723 as follows:
This inquiry should include the extent, if any, to which the maritimes have suffered because of lack of proper distribution of secondary industry in Canada, and also the possibility of securing extended markets-both Canadian and international-for all maritime production.
They were recommending an inquiry into the whole situation which prevailed in that end of the country. The report continues:
We are convinced that after the war-if prewar conditions are permitted to prevail-the Nova Scotia coal industry will not be able to exist without assistance in the marketing of the output of the mines. The coal industry situation would, therefore, be an important part of the proposed survey.
After the war, transportation will play an even more important part than previously in economic development.
Therefore in dealing noth conditions in the maritime provinces, we strongly urge that the government give earnest consideration to certain proposed improvements in transportation facilities. These include:
(a)	Improvements designed to make communications between Prince Edward Island and the mainland constant, reliable and adequate.
(b)	Improvement of transportation across the strait of Canso by the construction of a cause-wav. or in such manner as may be judged most satisfactory, considering the amount of traffic and the conditions of ice, tides and current.
(c)	Regrading, realigning and double-tracking of the Canadian National railway from Sydney to points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I was in on all the discussions leading up to that recommendation. It was estimated that if the government undertook that particular project it would give employment to 7,000 people for at least four years. Had that one recommendation in connection with Nova Scotia been carried out by the government we would not be reading the headlines about unemployment that we are seeing today in the press all across the country. It would have settled the problem of employment for at least four years.
In the meantime the governments, provincial and federal, have had an opportunity to carry on a survey of secondary industries as was recommended by that reconstruction com-
The Address-Mr. Gillis

mittee. Absolutely nothing has been done about this except that the Minister of Transport has done some boring and he knows how deep the water is. I am glad he is to follow me, because then I will have an official answer to the questions I am asking. That govem-mentndominated committee recommended unanimously what should be done, but it has not been done. I should like to give hon. members a little more information.
I have talked about this to some hon. members from Ontario. They have said to me, "Well, $20,000,000 or $26,000,000 is a lot of money to spend to build a bridge from the island of Cape Breton to the mainland of Nova Scotia." I was talking to one fellow about this problem of unemployment and when I reached the strait of Canso and started across he said, "Wait a minute; you are not in Canada." I said, "No? Where am I?" He said, "You are on the way to Newfoundland." I showed him the map and was able to convince him that we are still part of Canada. It is not a wilderness down there. Perhaps I had better give the house the opinion of the board of trade, because if I said this hon. members might not believe me; they might think it was just propaganda.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should we believe the board of trade?


Clarence Gillis: They are nice fellows and
they are non-political. They give a description of the island and state that it is the most important industrial centre east of Montreal. This report continues:
Cape Breton is an island forming the northeast part of Nova Scotia, jutting out into the Atlantic and separated from the rest of Canada by the narrow strait of Canso. With a land area of 3,120 square miles and a population of 200,000 (1945 estimate), it is the most concentrated industrial area east -of Montreal. The key industries are coal, steel, tourism, lumber, fishing and farming. It is significant that one-third of Canada's coal output and one-quarter of its pig iron comes from Gape Breton. Being closest geographically to Newfoundland and the continent, its fine harbours handle large amounts of exports and imports through the Sydneys_ and Louisburg.
There are some people living there and this island means something economically to the rest of Canada. I have here an editorial from the Sydney Post-Record, which is not a C.C.F. paper. I am sure my hon. friends from Cape Breton will agree with me when I say that. I think myself the engineering branch of the Department of Transport should get down to brass tacks and make a better guess, and I say "guess" advisedly. The first survey for this bridge was made in 1906 by Waddell Mardestry Company of New York, a well

known engineering firm. The report they made at that time was made available to the reconstruction committee. According to them it was a feasible project. Of course their estimate of that time would have to be revised considerably, but even so it would not be in accordance with the figures the department are giving out at the present time. This editorial reads:
Mr. MacLachlan said a causeway would cost between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000, a steel and concrete bridge between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. In a subsequent report to the government, which was babied in the house last spring, .Mr. MacLachlan's estimates were briskly stepped up to $32,000,000 for -the causeway and $54,000,000 for the -bridge. Obviously Mr. MacLachlan has been doing more guessing than figuring, and he seems capable -at any time of producing the kind of estimates he thinks his principals or his audiences, as the case may be, -would like him to produce. In the circumstances, an independent inquiry is what the needs of the case clearly indicate.
That is merely a press dispatch, but I have here a return which was tabled by the minister on April 23, 1947. It was stated at that time that a causeway would cost $17,797,000 and a bridge, $26,275,000. All kinds of figures have been thrown around. I have another report to which I should like to make reference, because I consider this man is qualified to talk on the subject. The caption is "Bridge over the strait of Canso." I do not know whether the minister has read this -article.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I have read it.


Clarence Gillis: Then there is no need for me to read it again. The minister agrees with it?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not said that.


Clarence Gillis: The article is by Charles P. Disney, consulting engineer, Toronto, and retired engineer of bridges, Canadian National Railways. I am sure they would not employ anybody who was featherheaded or incompetent. This gentleman says on page 4:
Chief of these is -the fact that the bridge would eliminate -the very costly ferries -and -terminals that nun7 provide the only means of access to and egress from the island, particularly the t-rain ferries of the Canadian National Railways which involve in the neighbourhood of a million-dollars-a-year maintenance charge for the ferries and the slips and terminal facilities on either side. The saving through the abolition of two complete terminals with their rail-road maintenance and operating equipment and personnel, plus the elimination of the necessity of rebuilding or replacing the present worn-out and obsolete ferries at a cost of millions of dollars, would go a long way towards paying the cost of the bridge.
I was rather disturbed when it was brought to my attention that the government were building another ferry for use at that point at a cost of $5,000,000.

The Address-Mr. Gillis


Mr. MacNICOL:: Surely not anything like that.


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman was in the house when the statement was made.


Clarence Gillis: No, I was not.


Lionel Chevrier: My recollection is that he was.


Clarence Gillis: My recollection is seeing the statement first in the press that it would cost $5,000,000 and maintenance charges of $l,000j000 a year. If a bridge were built it would pay for itself in a few years. Ferries are an obsolete means of transportation, no matter what kind of ferry it may be, and you will have exactly the same kind of bottleneck you have now. It will not improve conditions at all. I cannot understand the thinking of people who recommend that kind of thing when the construction of a bridge is the modern thing and would lead to the expansion of industry at both ends. One of the main reasons why there is not more secondary industry in that part of the country is the lack of transportation facilities. A bridge would encourage the development of industry and be in keeping with modern life. I would rather walk than take that old train that sputters along over an old roadbed and takes fifteen hours to go from Halifax to Cape Breton. But it does not look as if the government has any intention of building a bridge, having made this large expenditure of $5,000,000 in perpetuating an obsolete means of transportation by ferry.
This man Disney makes a very sensible report. He points out that he has had objections from people in Ontario and Quebec that the government of Canada should not be expected to make such a large expenditure in that part of the country, a charge on all the taxpayers of the country. But Mr. Disney points out that this is no local project; it is a national project.


Gordon Graydon: It has support from Ontario too.


Clarence Gillis: Definitely, and I am glad to hear that from the hon. member for Peel. A large part of the personnel that would be employed in the construction of a bridge at that point would come from this part of the country, and a large part of the materials used. Most of the steel would be rolled here and shipped down there. It would mean something for practically every part of this country, and the project should therefore not be considered a merely local one. Mr. Disney
comments on that in his report and I merely mention it now to dispose of that parochial angle. It is not something which the people in that part of the country are just hollering for. We are entitled to it. If there was such a bottleneck in Ontario or Quebec it would be cured and cured very quickly without any quibbling, but this Canso question has been a matter of controversy and investigation since 1906 and the controversy is still going on. However the Minister of Transport is both aggressive and progressive, and I am in hopes that the controversy will not last much longer.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: He must be going to do something about it.
Mr. Disney also points out that there is a certain kind of pier being put down now- I shall not go into the technical details because the minister knows the kind of pier I mean-which could be used there. Already a bridge has been built in the province of Quebec, across deep water, with a greater span, where there is just as much tide as there is in the strait of Canso, and that bridge is standing up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And there is another one at St. Catharines, Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and one in Quebec province too. I understand that they offered to build a sample pier in the centre of the channel and let it remain there to demonstrate that that type of pier will stand up against the tides and ice, which are the conditions on which the department base their objections to the building of a bridge. I would suggest that the minister read the whole report, because I cannot accept the departmental estimate that it would cost $54,000,000 to construct a bridge across the strait of Canso. I am inclined to accept Mr. Disney's estimate of $20,000,000 more or less. I think that is nearer the mark, although it may be a little low, but I shall not comment further on that.
I would point out to the minister that another investigation is being carried on. Boring has been going on since 1945 and all that part of the work is now done. The examination of costs is not yet completed. A board of engineers has been selected in consultation between the Premier of Nova Scotia and the federal government. I presume that negotiations were carried on through the Minister of Transport; and that board is going to make a survey of transportation facilities.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend object to the establishment of that board?


Clarence Gillis: I am going to object to it in a moment. The establishment of transportation facilities-what does that mean? It means, is the old ferry good, bad or indifferent? That is the proposed investigation, and you do not have to investigate that. You need only ask me. I have often gone over in the ferry, as I think the minister has himself, and it is about the worst transportation on the North American continent. Now that you have the provincial government co-operating -I think the gesture of the federal government was a very anaemic one-the board of engineers should determine the feasibility of that causeway or bridge and what the cost would be.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what thejr are going to do.


Clarence Gillis: Is it? The press dispatch said that the board would examine transportation facilities, and I visualized their looking over the old ferry to see whether it went fast or slow.


Lionel Chevrier: Often press reports are away out of line.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. I am glad that the minister has clarified that point and says that the board are going to determine the feasibility of the project, the cost and so forth.
My objection to that board of engineers is this. The three men appointed are from Quebec and Ontario. They are Professor D. S. Ellis, dean of engineering at Queen's university, Kingston; Doctor Arthur Surveyer, and Doctor P. L. Pratley, both Montreal consulting engineers.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you objecting to the board of engineers?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I am still objecting and I am objecting for this reason. I do not think the minister had to go outside the house. He has an engineer sitting behind him. He has the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Revenue, the member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters), and there are several others in this house who are qualified to go there and do that kind of job.


Gordon Graydon: Why don't you and the minister go down yourselves?


Clarence Gillis: He has engineers in Nova Scotia.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the member for Davenport?


Clarence Gillis: I am not being political about this. I do not want any opposition member to go. My conception of engineers is that they are practical fellows who are loyal to their profession and they do not like to let the profession down in such matters. I would be satisfied with the member for Queens-Lunen-burg. He has a great deal of ability in that field. But someone definitely interested, someone living in that part of the country, should have been included as a member of the board. Professors who are teaching in universities are secure in a world of books, and with all due respect to their profession I think that someone in the sticks who is living outside and is doing that kind of work should be on the board.
I am not going to exceed my time. I merely want to conclude by saying this. There was a time when the maritime provinces were quite in the minority and would be outvoted no matter whether they co-operated one hundred per cent or not. At the present time, if the maritime province members banded together in the interests of that part of the country they could force any vote they wanted to through this house. The present government has twelve of a majority. There are twenty-six maritime members here, and if we got together on that causeway and said, "No vote for your committee unless you make the commitment that you will give us that causeway"-


An hon. MEMBER:: A threat of blackmail.


Clarence Gillis: The whole system under which you live is blackmail. That is merely exercising your legitimate prerogative to get something done for the part of the country you represent, and I say that we could force the implementation of the report of a committee on which the government had a majority. If we got together and forced the implementation of that report, it would create employment and link up that part of the country with the rest of Canada. It would give that part of the country a half decent break, and that would be only doing our duty to the people we represent. British Columbia, I am sure, would do it. When it is a question of apples or lumber, of Japanese or fisheries, you generally find the British Columbia members, whether Liberals, Tories or C.C.F'ers, fairly well united on the subject.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Not on the Japanese.


Clarence Gillis: I am suggesting to the members from the maritime provinces that on this particular subject we should try to get together to get something done. We should

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
have secondary industries there. We should have that causeway, and there are several other things we should have.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Halifax recently he gave a press interview. He was asked whether it was not possible for the members from the maritime provinces to get together and force something along the lines I have suggested. The minister's answer was, "What are they asking for that they are not getting done?" The implication there is that we are not asking for anything, because we are not getting anything done. I think we should accept that challenge, and any time the senior member for Halifax is ready to call a caucus on maritime projects, for the purpose of getting together and forcing some recognition of that part of the country, he can give me a buzz and I shall be glad to join him.


Lionel Chevrier: If I rise to take part in the debate it is not so much to reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, (Mr. Gillis) as it is to deal with two matters which concern the Canadian National Railways and the pension fund of the railways. Before embarking on these two matters, however, I think it is in order that I should say a word or two in reply to some of the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
In concluding his remarks the hon. gentleman said that the members from the mari-times evidently had not asked for very much since they had received very little. Apparently my hon. friend's memory is quite short. He must have forgotten that within a very short period of time the government had spent, from 1936 until 1946, no less than
818,000,000 in the maritime provinces, and at the moment they have a program concerning the harbours of Saint John and Halifax which will cost no less than $8,000,00. So that when the hon. gentleman said they had asked for nothing and had received nothing-


Clarence Gillis: Not yet.


Lionel Chevrier: -he was unquestionably wrong.


Clarence Gillis: Merely promises.


Lionel Chevrier: The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), in a statement he made the other day, referred to some of the expenditure that was about to be made in the port of Halifax, and he was correct in the statement he made. I have not seen it, but I have heard it quoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
I can tell the hon. gentleman that in the main estimates for the present fiscal year there is provided for the port of Halifax the con struction of a transit shed, and there is further provision for the construction of a pier which will cost in the neighbourhood of three or four million dollars.
What my hon. friend means by saying that nothing is being done I do not know. All I can say is that when the amount that has been placed in the estimate has been voted and when the contract has been awarded there is nothing more that can be done so far as the department is concerned. It is then up to the contractor to complete the job. As regards the $8,000,000 mentioned a moment ago, contracts have not yet been awarded for this amount, but contracts have been awarded, I think, in one or two cases, and I recollect that at least one of the contracts is now under way.


Gordon Graydon: Have you that harbour down there under local control yet?


Lionel Chevrier: I can deal with that matter very quickly by telling the hon. gentleman that when his leader was down there he advocated local control, and he advocated local control during the by-election.


Gordon Graydon: I think your candidates did too.


Lionel Chevrier: If by local control he meant a return to the conditions which existed prior to the passing of the National Harbours Board Act, then I am sure that is not the kind of thing that this parliament ever intended.


Gordon Graydon: That is what your candidates asked for anyway.


Lionel Chevrier: In any event, I should like to return to some of the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I do not wish to deal at any length with them, because I should like to spend the greater part of my time dealing with matters which concern the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. HAZEN:: The minister said that $18,000,000 had been spent between 1936 and 1946-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: -on the harbours, I understood him to say, in the maritime provinces. Was that amount not spent by the national harbours board on all national harbours in the dominion?
The Address-Mr. Chewier


Lionel Chevrier: No. These sums were spent in the two ports of Saint John and Halifax, and for harbour facilities in the maritime provinces, such as terminal facilities and so on at Tormentine, Borden and the like. It had to do with the maritime area only, not exclusively the national harbours board.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to transportation facilities at Canso, and that is a matter which has attracted the attention of this house for some years. He complained of the fact that the estimates are not similar, that they vary, and so on. The estimates were given to the house prior to the adjournment in 1947, in a statement prepared by myself. The only difference between the return which my hon. friend refers to and the estimates then given is the increase in the cost of construction over the years.


Clarence Gillis: Twenty-seven million is a big increase.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not 827,000.000, because the cost of the causeway was fixed at $32,000,000, roughly, and that of the bridge at $54,000,000. Those figures were arrived at after consideration of the increased cost of construction and the increased cost of material, and they were added to the amounts which were tabled in the house.


Clarence Gillis: May I make a correction?


Lionel Chevrier: Just let me continue.


Clarence Gillis: But the minister is wrong in his figures.


Lionel Chevrier: That was the information which was given to the house. Those are the figures which the engineers arrived at after adding on the increased cost of construction.


Clarence Gillis: The return which was tabled in the house early in 1947 stated that the bridge would cost 826,000,000. In a few months why should it jump from 826,000,000 to $54,000,000? The increase in the cost of materials was not that much.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what return my hon. friend refers to other than the one I have in mind in 1946.


Clarence Gillis: I have sent upstairs for it.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is the 1946 one, there can be-no doubt that the difference is for the increased cost of construction.


Clarence Gillis: From $26,000,000 to $54,000,000 in two years?


Lionel Chevrier: In any event, my hon. friend complains about the fact that there is a great deal of investigation going on. He

says that something should be done about it, but the moment we set up a board of engineers to review the transportation facilities, he objects. That is exactly the tenor of his remarks this afternoon. The board of engineers has been set up for the purpose of reviewing the engineer's reports of the Department of Transport and the estimates therein. Those are the estimates to which my hon. friend objects. Those are the estimates of which he complains. He says they are not correct and he quotes Mr. Disney, the engineer, and so on. I have no objection to that. If that is so, let the board of engineers review the position and ascertain whether the bridge is feasible, whether the causeway is feasible, whether the terminal facilities should be improved or even whether a tunnel should be constructed. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house on this matter.


Clarence Gillis: I objected to the personnel. I said that at least one engineer from the maritimes should have been on that board.


Lionel Chevrier: I told the hon. member, when he was speaking, that one of the engineers w-as appointed at the request and suggestion of the province of Nova Scotia; and I should have thought that with the two other engineers, Doctor Surveyor and Doctor Ellis, the board was an exceptionally competent one. So far as I am concerned, I do not care where the engineers come from.


Clarence Gillis: I do.


Lionel Chevrier: The important thing is whether they are competent and qualified men, and whether they will do a good job. 1 do not think there is any doubt that in this case they will. I do not want to spend any more time upon the transportation facilities at Canso, but with the permission of the house I should like to deal with two matters that w'ere discussed by opposition members during the course of this debate last wreek.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made the charge that the basic pension of the Canadian National Railways was too low and should be revised; and he invited me to take part in this debate. At the same time he asked the government to reconsider the revision upward of this pension. The hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) dealt with a matter affecting freight rates and complained bitterly about the fact that the traditional policy of the Canadian government had been violated when an export rate reduction had been made from Kingston east to Portland, Maine. I should like to deal with those two matters.

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the Canadian National Railways' pension fund, and he quoted rule 12 which I, too, should like to put on Hansard. Rule 12 reads as follows:
Every employee who joins the service of the company hereafter before attaining the age of 45 years shall, if he remains continuously in the company's service to age 65, be entitled to receive upon his retirement a basic pension of $3'00 per annum, which amount shall be provided at the sole expense of the company.
This rule entitles the employee upon retirement to a minimum pension of $25 a month, which is paid at the sole expense of the company. No contribution is required as in most pension plans. This is the first or basic plan of the Canadian National Railways, and in effect it is in recognition of the ten years of service by the employees of the company. But this is only part of the story. The hon. member for Lake Centre did not put on the record rule 22, which should be read in conjunction with rule 12. I should like to place on Hansard rule 22, which reads as follows:
Upon retirement each employee shall receive such basic pension or service pension as he maybe entitled to under this pension fund. He will, in addition, receive such supplemental annuity as may be purchasable from the company by the amount of his contributions added to the contributions credited by the company together with accrued interest compounded thereon.
If an employee exercises his right to contribute to t'he fund after completion of ten years' service, which contribution may be from one to ten per cent of his salary, the company will contribute a like amount up to five per cent. These contributions by the employee and the company with compound interest to date of the employee's retirement will result in a considerable supplemental annuity, and the total amount of the pension together with the basic pension paid at the sole expense of the company will be a substantial amount added to his salary.
Let me take an example of this. Let us assume that an employee at age twenty-five begins to work for the Canadian National Railways and has a continuing period of employment of forty years. Let us assume that during that forty years' time he receives S100 a month. He may contribute from one to ten per cent of his salary. Let us assume that his contribution is five per cent of his salary. That five per cent is matched by the railway; and that means in effect that he will be receiving a monthly straight life pension which will be in excess of S75 a month. There are, of course, some employees who are in the low brackets and who majr not be able to contribute one to five per cent or who may 5849-72J
not be able to contribute anything at all. However, the pension plan is drawn up in such a way that they may contribute; they have an opportunity to do so, and the failure of an employee to take advantage of the privilege to contribute cannot be charged against the Canadian National Railways. The total contracts issued under this plan number 11,617, of which 9,595 are still in force. Most pension plans provide for contributions by the employees, including employees in the low-wage brackets. In the case of the Canadian National Railways plan, this is purely voluntary; therefore the Canadian National minimum cannot be judged without consideration to the other features of the plan. I should like to put on record one paragraph of a letter I wrote to the hon. member for Lake Centre, to which he referred in the debate, under date of November 4, 1947. I said:
In the administration of the fund, the rules must, of course, be applied alike to every employee and cannot be variously interpreted. To depart from this principle would lead to endless trouble and certainly we would be charged with discrimination. We know of no injustices and employees are free to take up their cases with the superintendent of pensions through their labour representatives or through their superior officers even as far as the president, if they feel that they have not been fairly dealt with in the matter of pensions. A very large number of our employees belong to labour organizations and the officers of the brotherhoods are not backward in presenting cases to us where they think any merit exists.
Before leaving the subject of pensions, I should like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on January 3 of this year, in which he set out in detail why the government could not give consideration to revising upward the annuities of superannuated civil servants. At that time he said the government did not think it fair and proper to grant its own superannuated civil servants an increase in their allowances, and he gave the reasons therefor. In reply to the invitation given by the hon. member for Lake Centre to the government to revise upward the basic pension of the Canadian National Railways, all I can say is that, in view of the attitude taken by the government with respect to its own superannuated civil servants, I would not feel disposed to advise the government to interfere in the pension plan of the Canadian National Railways, or to ask the government to tell the officers of the Canadian National Railways that they should revise the basic pension upward.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Perhaps, before the minister leaves that question, he will say whether he has any figures as to the number of retired
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

Canadian National employees who receive only the basic pension, and how many receive an additional pension as well.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe the number of employees receiving the basic pension is something in the neighbourhood of nine hundred. I say that from memory, subject to correction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those figures would be available if we asked for them in the proper way.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly. I have seen them, but I am giving them now from memory, and if I am wrong I hope the house will forgive me. I shall be glad to get them for my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall put the question on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: The second and, I think, more important matter with which I should like to deal was brought up by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), who complained bitterly that the export rate on eight or ten commodities to the port of Portland, Maine, had been reduced. He charged that the traditional and historic policy of the government and of Canada, to encourage trade and traffic through its own Canadian ports, had been violated. The hon. gentleman based his whole argument upon a false premise and' upon facts which at times were inaccurate. His charges against the officers of the Canadian National Railways were wholly and entirely unwarranted. .
My first words, Mr. Speaker, will be to assure the house that I, as Minister of Transport, and the government of Canada did not depart one iota from the traditional policy of encouraging traffic through Canadian ports. In fact I expect to be able to establish that positive action to encourage the use of our ports and to assist in the betterment of the facilities of those ports has been and will continue to be taken. The hon. member based his remarks upon two things that had occurred. The first was the action of the Canadian National Railways in equalizing the rates to Portland on eight or ten commodities, and the consequent withdrawal or shifting of the sailings of the Moore-McCormack Lines, a United States concern, from the ports of Saint John and Halifax to the port of Portland. The second was the routing of a million bushels of rye by the French supply council through Portland instead of through a Canadian port. The hon. member dwelt at great length on the traditional policy of Canada, and quoted statements made from time to

time by public men, former premiers of New Brunswick and former prime ministers of the dominion. As far as those statements are concerned, I find myself in entire agreement with my hon. friend; but from that point on we must part company. I want to refer to the Canadian Northern Railway Act of 1911, and I should like to quote section 13. I refer to that act particularly, because it contains in essence what parliament intended the policy of Canada and of the railways should be:
The company must agree (1) that all freight originating on its lines, not specifically routed otherwise, shall when destined for points in Canada be carried over the railways within Canada; (2) that the through rates on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports; (3) that all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried to Canadian ports; and (4) that the companies shall not in any matter within their powers directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects, in good faith, use their utmost endeavours to fulfil its conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
My contention is that nothing done by the Canadian government or nothing done by the Canadian 'National Railways in any way viol-lated the traditional policy as laid down in that and other statute law in this parliament.
Since the hon. member claims that this policy has been violated, it becomes necessary for me to bring to the house the facts which arose in connection with this incident. What are the facts? They are as follows: Since 1905 the export rate on all commodities moving east of Kingston through the three ports of Halifax, Saint John and Portland have been on a parity, with but one exception, namely, that Saint John had an advantage of one cent per 100 pounds over the port of Halifax until 1923, when the Canadian National Railways system was set up and established; and it was the Canadian National Railways which did away with the one cent per 100 pounds preference in favour of Saint John.
From that time on, until 1938, the three ports remained on a parity. In 1938 the interstate commerce commission of the United States granted a ten per cent increase on export rates to the port of Portland. In the same year, or shortly after the United States application, a similar application was made to the board of transport commissioners for Canada, asking for a similar increase; and the board of transport commissioners did grant a similar increase of ten per cent and again placed the three ports on a parity.

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Because of representations made by various interests to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Railways decided to forgo the ten per cent, not on all the commodities, but on eight or ten only. The remaining rates, which were by far the majority, remained on a parity among the three ports. In November, 1947, the Canadian National Railways equalized the rates to Portland on the remaining eight or ten commodities. In doing this, the traditional policy of the Canadian government, as well as the obligation placed upon the railways of this country, and as laid down in various statute laws, was not in any way violated. No discrimination was exercised against any Canadian port. The only thing that was done was to equalize rates with reference to the three ports, a condition that had existed over many years.
I should now like to deal with the reasons why the rates were equalized by the Canadian National Railways to Portland; and in order to do this I should like to refer to the letter written by Moore-McCormack Lines Incorporated to the Canadian National Railways and to quote two paragraphs therefrom.
First let me remind the house that a shipowner is of course entirely free to arrange his sailings according to what he considers his best interests; and it is not uncommon that shift-ings take place from time to time. The letter I have in my hand states that at least one of the reasons why the shifting from the maritime ports to Portland took place was because of undue time taken at the berth in the winter season of 1946-47 waiting for and loading cargoes.
During that season, as the house knows, not only were the railways of this country hard pressed to bring equipment to the maritime provinces, and in fact, to all parts of Canada, but the weather was such that delays in shipping took place from time to time. Those were conditions over which the railways, and certainly over which the national harbours board had no control.
In September of last year the national harbours board held a conference at Montreal of all interested organizations to review the operations of the previous season at the maritime ports, and to secure co-operative effort for the present season. Committees were established; and I am glad to say at this time, from the information I have received from these ports, that conditions have been materially bettered. In fact our terminals at Saint John and Halifax handled substantially more traffic in December last than in the same month of the previous year.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the minister be good enough to give us the date and place of the letter from Moore-McCormack?


Lionel Chevrier: I was coming to that. The letter from Moore-McCormack Lines is dated at New York, December 9, 1947. It is addressed to F. J. Stock, traffic manager, foreign freight department, Canadian National Railways, Board of Trade building, Montreal. Let me again remind the house that this is a United States shipping company. I do not wish to read the letter in full, because it is too lengthy. However, I shall quote from it.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there not a rule that if a letter is produced it must be read?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to producing it.


Douglas King Hazen: I ask that it be read.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to producing the letter and1 reading it to the house. My only reason for not reading the whole of it is that it would take several minutes, and I had intended quoting only two paragraphs.


Douglas King Hazen: I produced several letters and read them into the record, because I thought it would be fair to do that. I would ask that the minister read the whole of the letter into the record, if he would be so good.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection at all. The letter is as follows:
December 9, 1947.
Mr. F. J. Stock,
Traffic Manager-Foreign Freight Department, Canadian National Railways,
Board of Trade Building,
Montreal, Canada.
Aly dear Mr. Stock,
We beg to confirm our conversation that was held in this office in April of this year, when we complained to you bitterly in consequence of the extremely poor service that had been rendered to our vessels at the winter ports of St. John, N.B., and Halifax, N.S., in the winter of 1946-1947.
At that time we discussed the progress of our Canadian service to the east coast of South America and the plans that we were laying for the future in injecting our fast combination passenger and freight and reefer vessels, when we advised that it would be impossible to do this until better arrangements could be made as to winter service.
We advised you specifically that our first vessel which loaded at Saint John-the Pontus H. Ross-actually arrived at 12.32 p.m. on December 15 and she was delayed in getting a berth and did not start loading until 9.30 a.m. on December 18. She was delayed very greatly in not being able to get her cargo in consequence of the congestion of harbour facilities, with the result that she did not sail until January 18. 1947. having been in the harbour thirty-four days and loaded with some 5,488 tons of cargo.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

In consequence of this unfortunate operation, we conferred with our agents, Montreal Shipping Company, who recommended that our next vessel be berthed at Halifax, N.S. Accordingly, the Berkeley Victory arrived in Halifax on January 19, and did not commence loading until January 22. She sailed February 2-fourteen days in harbour-and loaded 4,941 tons, all of which by comparison with operations at other ports -was still extremely bad.
Our next vessel was the Vernon S. Hood. She arrived at Halifax on March 4, and did not dock until March 7. Our experience -with this ship was the same as with the other ships, and it was not until March 14 she sailed, and then with a part cargo only, i.e., 3,596 tons, after she had remained in port ten days.
In consequence of these very bad performances, we decided to cancel our April vessel and resume service from Montreal in June. In our conversation with you in April of this year, notwithstanding your urgent reouest that we give the ports of Halifax and 'Saint John a further trial, we had to regretfully advise you that we could not see how7 w7e could resume service at these ports during the winter of 1947-48. Before making this decision final, w7e conferred w7ith the Montreal Shipping Company, w7ho advised that they did not see very much hope for improvement.
With this before us, we appealed to you to make some adjustment in the rates so that the port of Portland. Me., could be used as an overflow7 port until such time as the operations at the ports of Halifax and Saint John were improved so as to provide efficient and economical operation of ships at these ports.
T now7 understand that you have so arranged to equalize the rates to Portland. Me., as against the other ports, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your kind co-operation, this from both ourselves and our shippers, w7ho otherwise would have been forced to route their cargoes from Canadian points of shipment via Boston or New York.
Yours faithfully.
Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
Where in that letter is there any indication of inducement on the part of the Canadian National Railways to withdraw trade from Canada to the port of Portland? On the contrary, the letter clearly states:
. . . notwithstanding your urgent request that we give the ports of Halifax and Saint John a further trial, we had to regretfully advise you that we could not see how wre could resume service at these ports.
And then there is this part in the last paragraph:
I now understand that you have so arranged to equalize the rates to Portland. Maine, as against the other ports, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your kind co-operation, this from both ourselves and our shippers w7ho otherwise would have been forced to route their cargoes from Canadian points of shipment via Boston or New York.
The point is that if the railways had done what the hon. member for St. John-Albert suggested they should do, then Canada would have lost the whole trade and would not have

had even the freight revenue consequent upon the carrying of the commodities to Portland.
I come now to the matter of the equalization of the rate to Portland. It should be clearly understood that the railway freight adjustment was not a matter of setting up discriminatory rates but of restoring equality. What must never be forgotten is that the Canadian railways are compelled to haul traffic to eastern ports at relatively low ton-mile revenue because of the longer mileages involved. For instance, here are the mileages from Montreal:
To Halifax	
840	milesTo Saint John	
482	milesTo Portland	
295	milesTo Boston	
326	miles
With this additional mileage involved, the railways cannot justify lower rates to Canadian ports than to the nearer United States ports. In effect the argument of the hon. member is that, on the eight or ten commodities referred to, the rates should be maintained on a lower basis than to the United States ports. If that suggestion were adopted, why should not all rates be similarly treated? Government policy never contemplated such a situation and it would be dangerous so to interpret it. If the Canadian railways had reduced the rate to United States ports below that applicable to Canadian ports the present complaint of the hon. gentleman would be well founded, but that is not the case. Where then has there been a violation of the traditional and historic policy of this country to encourage Canadian trade and the movement of Canadian trade via Canadian ports?
I should next like to deal with the question of French rye. There might- be a contradiction in these two terms, but the charge has been made by the hon. gentleman that the officials of the Canadian National Railways permitted a strangely inaccurate statement to be made by the manager of the French supply council and did nothing to encourage the movement of the rye through Canadian ports. So far as I am aware, the shipment of rye through Portland by the French supply council has no connection with nor was it in any manner influenced either by the shifting of Moore-McCormack sailings or by the reduction in the freight rate.
The hon. member considered it advisable to go into this matter at some length and to leave an inference, entirely unsupported, that some sinister influence operated on the part of Canadian officials to deflect this traffic from Canadian ports to Portland. I have made numerous inquiries, and all that I can find from the sources available to me is that the

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Portland routing was the decision of the French supply council and the decision of that council alone. In the first place, I am advised by the officers of the Canadian National Railways that the traffic came to them with the routing definitely determined and established and stipulated by the shipper as to where it should go.
I am further advised by the officers of the national harbours board that at no time prior to the routing was this traffic discussed with them and that it is inconceivable that anyone connected with either the harbour of Halifax or the harbour of Saint John would have given Secretary General Hommey of the French supply council such palpably incorrect information as he is supposed or alleged to have given to the press. In the circumstances, the inference is left with me that whatever consideration influenced the decision the routing was fixed by the French authorities without inquiry from responsible sources as to the ability of Canadian ports to handle this business.
At this juncture I should like to say one word about the delegation which called to see me in connection with these matters. I believe there were some thirty in number, and I listened carefully to their recpmmendations for the greater part of two hours and to a brief which had been prepared ostensibly for submission to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and not for submission to me as Minister of Transport.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must remind the minister that his time is exhausted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank hon. members.
I am sure the hon. member did not want to be unfair to me the other day when he left the implication with the house that I was in a hurry. I think any minister who gives the better part of two hours of his time to a delegation is certainly not in a hurry. He could not be in a hurry, otherwise he would not have been prepared to deal with them on that basis. However, that is a matter of little or no importance, and I pass now to another question.
To my mind, this whole question is one concerning freight rates. Being a matter of freight rates, it is one which should be disposed of by the court established for that purpose by this parliament, namely, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. No one knew that better than the people affected because they decided to make application to
the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and protest against this reduction or the equalization of rates.
What made the interested parties change their minds and withdraw their application from the board, I do not know. All I can say now is what I said to the delegation, that I was extremely sorry that they had decided to withdraw their case from the board of transport commissioners, because if, as my hon. friend has stated, there was a violation of the traditional and historic policy of Canada, then the board of transport commissioners would have told us whether that was so or not. I maintain that there was no such violation and I have attempted so to prove. If perhaps I am wrong, then my hon. friend may likewise be wrong. Is it not up to the tribunal established for that very purpose to decide whether or not the traditional policy of Canada has been violated? In any event, for reasons best known to themselves, the interested parties decided to withdraw their application from the board. I regret that it was withdrawn, because I think the protest they made should have been made to the logical board which was established for that purpose.
If one listened carefully to the hon. member he could not come to any other conclusion than that the hon. member thought-to some extent this is true also of the hon. member for Cape Breton South-that the operations of our maritime harbours are seriously threatened by the action of the Canadian National Railways and perhaps as well by the actions of the national harbours board. I have before me some statistics which I should like to place on the record with the indulgence of the house, because I realize that I have gone beyond my time. I should like to place on Hansard this statement affecting the two harbours, because the figures speak for themselves. The total cargo tonnage at both harbours, Halifax and Saint John, amounted to 6,593,000 tons last year, which compares with 3,988,000 tons pre-war, 1938, or an increase of 2.600,000 tons, or 65 per cent.
With regard to harbour facilities I submit that the best evidence of the government's interest in and desire to promote the activity of our maritime ports is the fact that construction projects have recently been given approval and will be carried out as rapidly as possible. They involve an aggregate expenditure of about $8,000,000 in Saint John and Halifax.
I should like to give some further information and statistics which may astound the
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

house, but I feel that they should be put on the record because of the statement made, first, by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, and also by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and other -hon. members from the maritime provinces who seem to think the government or the railways are not doing what they should for these ports. I wonder if they will have the same opinion after they have heard these figures.
1.	The Canadian export traffic, excluding grain in bulk, handled by the Canadian National Railways through the port of Saint John during the calendar year 1947 amounted to 651,000 tons, or an increase of 28.9 per cent over similar traffic handled during the year 1946.
2.	United States export traffic-that is, traffic originating in the United States but coming through maritime ports-handled by the Canadian National Railways through the port of Saint John during the calendar year 1947 shows an increase of 159.4 per cent over similar traffic during the year 1946. Does that indicate that the railways are enticing traffic away from Saint John and Halifax?


Douglas King Hazen: Could the minister give us the amounts?


Lionel Chevrier: I have prepared my
answer in this fashion. I have n-ot the amounts before me, but I shall be glad to get them for my hon. friend if they will be of any assistance.
3.	Total Canadian import and export traffic, excluding grain in bulk, handled by the Canadian National through the port of Saint John in 1947 was 23.6 per cent higher than for the year 1946.
My hon. friend has complained, and those whom he represents have, to some extent, complained of enticement by the Canadian National Railways of traffic away from Canadian ports to Portland. Let the hon. gentleman listen to this:
4.	In 1946 the export of Canadian goods handled by the Canadian National Railways through the port of Portland, and excluding grain in bulk, amounted to 59,209 tons, and in 1947 this traffic was reduced to 11,499 tons, or a decrease of 80.6 per cent. Does that indicate that Canada or the railways are inviting traffic to the port of Portland?
I go on:
5.	The import of foreign goods through the port of Portland for Canadian destination in the year 1946 amounted to 17,770 tons, and in 1947 this traffic was reduced to 10,589 tons, or a decrease of 40-4 per cent.

6.	In 1946 the Canadian National Railways carried to Portland for export 97,820 tons of grain, and in 1947, 75,846 tons, or a decrease of 22-5 per cent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the minister be good enough to give corresponding figures for the port of Halifax?


Lionel Chevrier: Anticipating that question, I brought the figures along for Halifax.
1.	The Canadian export traffic, excluding grain in bulk, handled by the Candian National Railways during the calendar year 1947 amounted to 750,000 tons for Halifax, as compared with 654,000 tons for Saint John.
2.	United States export traffic handled by the Canadian National during the calendar year 1947 shows an increase of 66-8 per cent over similar traffic during the year 1946.
3.	The total value of imports and exports passing through the port of Halifax in the year 1936 was $65,500,000; in 1939 it had risen to $71,000,000, and in 1946 it stood at $179,000,000, or an increase of 172-7 per cent over 1936.
To go back to Saint John, the total value of imports and exports passing through the port of Saint John in the year 1936 was $68,000,000; in 1939 it had risen to $80,000,000, and in 1946 it stood at $244,000,000, or an increase of 259 per cent over 1936.
The receipts and shipments of grain at the port of Saint John in 1936 stood at 25,000,000 bushels, in 1939 at 19,000,000 bushels, and in 1946 at 31,300,000 bushels, 1946 showing an increase of 25 per cent over 1936.
The receipts and shipments of grain through the port of Halifax in 1936 stood at 7,000,000 bushels, in 1939 at 7,500,000 bushels, and in 1946 at 13,200,000 bushels, 1946 showing an increase of 89 per cent over 1936.


Gordon Graydon: Of course there was a war on.


Lionel Chevrier: I ask the house to compare these figures with the three or four shifts of sailing by Moore-McCormack, of which the hon. member complained and which in 1946M7 amounted to 14,000 tons of cargo, which, compared with the figures I have just given, without in any way wanting to be derogatory, is simply a drop in the bucket. If these figures are not an indication of the attitude of the government and of its various agencies in encouraging trade through our ports I do not know what could be said in their favour.
In conclusion, let me tell the hon. member for St. John-Albert as well as the mayor of Saint John that the policy of the present administration is to encourage and to use our

The Address-Mr. Skey
national harbours to the fullest possible extent, and it has never departed from that policy.
I should like to have taken a minute or two -but I hesitate to do so, because the house has been more than kind to me-to say a few words concerning the attitude of the president of the Canadian National Railways. I am sure that the hon. member did not want to cast any reflection upon him when he stated that, although the people of his city had been assured by the president of the Canadian National Railways that there would be an encouragement of the movement of trade through Canadian ports, that had not been done. I asked the president of the Canadian National Railways himself. I discussed the whole matter with him and I saw him again yesterday. He assured me that he had made no such statement as that quoted by the press and by my hon. friend.


Douglas King Hazen: I quoted your denial of it too.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I am simply pointing out to the house the position of the president- of the Canadian National Railways when he denied that he had made the statement which was alleged by the press to have been made, and not only has he assured me that he has made no such statement, but no one is more anxious than he is to assist the ports of this country and to do everything he can to route traffic in the direction of Canadian ports.
My hon. friend wound up his speech by asking me a number of questions, and the answers I have already given in my remarks. But I say this to him in conclusion. The traditional and historic policy of the government, of successive governments, of encouraging trade to our national ports and national harbours, has never been violated; but in fact, as established by the statistics I have put on record, positive action to encourage the use of our maritime ports has been and will continue to be taken.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question. What we in Ontario would like to know, having in mind the situation that has grown up in the house, is this. Is this traffic, which we understand has been routed now to Portland, being re-routed to Halifax or Saint John?


Lionel Chevrier: What traffic is my hon. friend referring to? Is he referring to the traffic that has to do with the equalization of rates on eight or ten commodities to which
the hon. member for St. John-Albert referred, or does he refer to the traffic of all other commodities that were not equalized?


Gordon Graydon: We are interested only in this. We understand from the debates here that some of this traffic which should be going to Halifax and Saint John is going to Portland. If that is not the case, there is no question.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not the case.


Gordon Graydon: Fine.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: I have listened with interest to the minister's declaration of policy with regard to freight rates and transport in Canada, and now I should like to exercise my prerogative in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to turn my attention to matters of defence in Canada. I am sorry that the minister is not in the chamber at the moment, but might I request his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to draw his attention to the remarks I have to make this afternoon. I consider it appropriate that the Minister of Labour should be asked to do this, because I have expressed admiration for his declaration on a defence policy in Canada when he said that if you are not prepared to defend that which you have you will lose it.
On this occasion I have the honour to speak for my party on the subject of air defence of Canada. Though all of the things I might recommend would not, of course, be their responsibility, the views I shall put forward this afternoon have been endorsed by the defence committee of the Progressive Conservative party, and at the special request of our chairman, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I have been asked to put the case for air defence this afternoon, because we consider it to be a priority requirement in Canada.
I should like to mention one or two things that have been said in the past by men whom we all respect. The first one I wish to quote from is General Marshall in his report on the armed forces of the United States following world war II. He said, in referring to the United States:
We may elect again to depend on others, and the whim and error of potential enemies, but if we do we will be carrying the treasure and freedom of this great nation in a paper bag.
I contend that the quotation from General Marshall which I have just given is equally applicable to -our Dominion of Canada, because
ms
The Address-Mr. Skey



COM'MONS

[Stage Direction]
the defence needs of Canada and of the United States are completely interwoven. If one is threatened, so is the other.
Our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), speaking in Montreal as recently as February 9, is reported by the Canadian Press as having said that it was impossible to rule out the possibility 'of aggression after looking at the Russian record in the field of international relations since the war.
We have General Marshall, who is so prominent today in trying to keep the peace, and our own minister saying that we must preserve our freedom by being prepared to defend it. I do not feel that I need labour these points any longer.
When I have spoken previously on this subject in the house I have recommended the air force as the most powerful of offensive weapons and the most effective defensive weapon. To illustrate this, the skilled German generals after the last war, when they were asked how we invaded the continent of Europe, paid our air forces the compliment of saying that they were the decisive factor, both in securing the invasion of Normandy and in the Germans' failure to contain that invasion. I have mentioned that previously in the house.
I have also spoken of the manpower situation and urged a survey of our manpower so that we might know what forces the country could sustain. I have spoken for air cadet training and called attention to the importance of cadet training in the schools and high schools of our country. I have called the attention of the house to the necessity of dual forces in Canada, equally balanced to defend our west and east, pointing out that we require a duplication in our defence needs. I have spoken about the great service rendered to all Canada's armed forces by the women of our country, by the Canadian girls who went into the navy, army and air force, and I have urged that their fine service be continued by enlisting them in reserve units. I have spoken also of supplementing our sendee personnel with civilian employees to increase the effectiveness of the few men we are able to enlist in our services today.
There is one subject, however, on which I have not had1 a great deal to say, but which I wish to discuss this afternoon, and that is the Canadian flying clubs. Prior to the war, Canadian flying clubs were paid a small subsidy for every trained pilot. I understand that now their costs have risen to a great extent. In the Toronto club they have risen from $900 to $2,200 a month, and they are

meeting there to discuss the possibility of washing up all their activities. I think it would be a great pity if Canada were to lose the services of the flying clubs which, from coast to coast, played such a great part in the formation of our defence forces in world war II. I urge the government to reconsider the adoption of the policy which they had prior to the war, namely, that of paying to these clubs some subsidies for those pilots whom they are able to train to a licence standard.
In addition to these considerations, we should be concerned at the present time with the production of our own aircraft in this country. In a recent editorial in Aircraft and Airport of December, 1947, I notice the following:
That Canada can build aircraft-good aircraft and lots of them-was proven in the not too distant past, but that vast potential built out of a wartime necessity has been allowed to dissipate and go down the drain with the fine phrases and rose-tinted promises made to the boys who came back.
We are faced today with an aircraft industry which is on the point of disintegration, and I suggest that we should do all we can to support it, so that machines may be built which our forces and civilian pilots will fly, in order to preserve for our country this great technical industry.
We are not the only country that is concerned with this industrial problem. The United States secretary for air, Mr. Symington, recently brought down a report. Although I have endeavoured to obtain an original copy, they are not available in Ottawa, and I must use the report from Time magazine of January 19, 1948, in giving the house a short resume of what the United States secretary for air had to say. In reporting on the industry, the commission pointed out, among other things:
A nation in the modern world is only as strong as the industry which produces its weapons. If air power was the nation's first line of defence-
I pause to call to the attention of the house the fact that this United States committee did find that air power was their first line of defence. I continue:
-it was a very weak line indeed, considering the state of the aircraft industry.
That is, of the industry in the United States.
Recently we have imported into Canada some fine, first-class jet fighter aircraft. I understand that members of the house will have an opportunity of examining some of them tomorrow. I feel that they are a step forward, but not the complete step until we are able to produce in our own country or at

The Address-Mr. Skey
least on this continent these machines, so that we shall have our forces supported by an integrated industry and not in the position in which they would be reinforced over long and precarious lines of communication.
In past years there has been some discussion in the house about the necessity of building up a proper intelligence and information service. I would certainly endorse this effort on the part of all Canada's armed forces. But with all these, the real strength of your defence forces lies in scientific research. I should mention the incorporation of a national research council member on the defence council of Canada. I think that is a forward step, and I believe that the representative selected is a fine and able man who will give real support and understanding to the needs of our armed forces.
I have said these things, Mr. Speaker, without political bias. There is. in truth, nothing in my speech that is with political bias, because I merely speak for what I believe to be the good of our country, for the protection of our people and for the protection of those social gains that we have been able to make under our system of government. Without the defence and security provided by our armed forces, the benefits of pensions, health insurance, medical clinics, mothers' allowances, and so on, can mean nothing, if we are vulnerable to the destructive force and fury of aggressive powers.
It may look as if I am standing here advocating the widespread use of the taxpayers' dollars. I am not doing that, however, because I propose to prove in the next few minutes that what I am advocating is the cheapest and best method of defending our country. The air force is peculiarly adapted to give us security and the most adequate defence with the maximum flexibility, which means that the smallest numbers can be used over the largest front. It is peculiarly suited to our geographic needs. It is a medium in which Canadians in two wars have proved themselves to be well skilled and able to compete, yes, more than compete, with the men of other countries. We have the great records of those who flew in the first world war. and we had our great training plan in Canada as a result of which forty or more squadrons of our men served in the front line in Europe and indeed across the world in the last war. When I mention this, I should like to call the minister's attention to an editorial in the Globe and Mail, dated Thursday, February 5, entitled, "Air power Canada's weapon". Set out there is, I believe, the most complete and able statement that I have seen
on the defence of Canada, and in particular the air defence of Canada, up to the present time. I quote in part from it as follows:
Relying as we undoubtedly do on this assistance-
That is, assistance from the United States. -we have a clear obligation to be ready with our own contribution to joint defence, one which suits our resources in manpower, skill and money. It needs no argument to prove that this contribution should be an air force larger and better equipped than the one we now have. It happens that such a force, besides being within our reach, provides the kind of defensive and striking power especially needed in a country of Canada's size and geography.
I believe the truth of those words is selfevident. I have some other quotations I could read on that point, but I think I can leave it, since it is so well stated by that editorial writer. It is indeed the cheapest defence we can buy, and the most effective at the present time. I will give the house just one illustration. During world war II, Britain had around her coasts a chain of early warning stations, which were able to plot the enemy bomber and fighter squadrons as they flew against the British isles. These stations gave good protection; when the German commanders estimated the fighter defences of the British isles they believed that the fighter force which opposed them was ten times greater than it actually was. In other words, by the application of the early warning service to the air force a small force was made ten times more effective. A few squadrons were as useful as many wings and groups would have been without it. Canada can make use of this great discovery and apply it economically to its own defence. Most emphatically it can, because during the last war Canadian technicians became especially skilled in the use of radar. We have heard the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) speak of its benefits to the merchant shipping. At the great school at Clinton, Ontario, we developed technicians who went not only to the Canadian forces but to all the allied forces, to show them the application of radar to the air weapon. This school was commanded by Wing Commander Patrick, who is now with RCA-Victor, and who during his time with the air force I believe made a unique contribution to his service and his country. Fortunately his good work has been continued by able successors, and I am pleased to learn that this great school at Clinton is carrying on into the peace, to use this great scientific device for the benefit of our service and the protection of our people. I might just make passing reference to the fact that this school is
The Address-Mr. Skey
[Stage Direction]
in Huron county, where one of my service colleagues is contesting a by-election in a few days. I refer to Flight Lieutenant Tommy Pryde, who served with the army and air force in the first great war and with the air force in the last war. Even if he did not belong to my political party, he certainly would have my every sympathy. I am pleased to see, however, that his great record of national and community service is such as to recommend him to the people there over and above party considerations.
To change the theme of this address for a moment, I have already ventured the opinion that an adequate and reasonably balanced air force, balanced in content and supported by the devices of modern science, can give Canada the best defence protection at the present time. I now urge the government to adopt a policy in support of the R.C.A.F. which will develop it into a first-line defence force. I do not believe a country of the size and population of Canada can afford to be strong in all three services at the same time. Therefore, without apology, with great deference to and appreciation of the service rendered by our soldiers and sailors in the last war, and without detracting from that service in any way, I urge this policy upon the government.
I now return to another section of the report of Mr. Symington, secretary for air in the United States, in order to point out what was found by this commission appointed by the president. Here are some of their findings:	firstly, that the United States of
America is under definite threat. I shall not elaborate on that; but, if it is true, Canada is also threatened. Secondly, they also assume that any attack on democracy would be directed against the United States and that it would come without warning; thirdly, that the objective of any potential enemy would be the destruction of the United States, capacity to resist; fourthly, that security lay in keeping an air force in being in peace time greater than any other self-governed people have ever kept; fifthly, that neither minding one's business nor trying to reach a pacific accord among nations was enough at the present time. It is a pretty dismal prospect, and only because of that fact did I choose to speak on a subject which I know is unpopular, which may lead some people to attack me as a militarist and which is perhaps not foremost in the minds of the Canadian people at the present time.
Our military leaders, from George Washington to General Eisenhower, supported as recently as November 4 by Canada's General

Crerar, have urged a policy of peace through strength. Though we may all respect Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his stand following world war I; while we may have admired him personally, we now know that he was wrong. On November 4, in New York, General Crerar said:
Until this -world of ours reaches a much higher plane of civilization and international understanding, I consider it essential that these countries which believe in the maintenance of peace, and in the arbitration or judicial settlement of international disputes which may endanger that condition, should be militarily prepared immediately and strongly to act in support of these principles.
Two days before that statement was made, General Marshall had reported that fifteen milliou men perished in world war II.
If I were to make recommendations, I should make reference, first, to several statements made in Montreal on February 9, by the Minister of National Defence. Firstly, he said that Canada cannot afford to maintain a huge peacetime defence force. Secondly, he said that we must ensure positive security under our own arms; thirdly, that we should co-operate with the United States and the commonwealth and, fourth, that our forces should be capable of rapid expansion. With those four statements I can have no quarrel. I consider that they are all sound, and that the only unsound feature is that we continue to spread the small amount we have for our defence forces, rather than to concentrate it on something that could be considered effective by way of an air defence force.
I would urge that he set up the type of force which could meet these immediate requirements, an air force which would be supported by adequate reserves, a force which would be highly trained and flexible, and provided with the most modern weapons and scientific assistance available.
Before concluding, I should like to refer to some of the more general aspects of the subject of defence. In this connection I should like to refer to a comment by Trygve Lie, secretary of the united nations, in London on January 29. He said the united nations had kept the peace for two years. The remark struck me forcibly because, much as we may hope for it, the united nations still remains an organization without any constables or magistrates to support its force.
Gordon Graydon: Just a lot of truant officers.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes. And though we all admire the great work Mr. Lie has done, we wonder at his saying that the united nations has kept the peace for two years. His observation

The Address-Mr. Isnor
recalls to my mind, or to the mind of any thoughtful person, the speech made by Mr. Winston Churchill almost two years ago at Fulton, Missouri. Mr. Churchill then recommended that the united nations should receive the support of squadrons of aircraft, because they were the cheapest and most flexible armed unit, and that they could support the moral decisions of the constables and magistrates in this shrinking world. On that occasion Mr. Churchill said:
We must start immediately to equip the united nations with sheriffs and constables in the form of an armed force of air squadrons directed by the world organization.
Then he closed with these words:
. . . because our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors of another war.
He thought only of peace; and who should think more of it than a man of his stature, who saw Britain at her weakest and her greatest during the days of the last war. I fully agreed with what he advocated at that time, and I repeated it in the house. What he said proved to be right.
Just a few days ago he rose in the British House of Commons to say that we must find a way to live with Russia during the next two years. The searching truth of his statements during the war, and of his appreciation at Fulton, Missouri, makes one apprehensive; because this man, when he speaks, does not speak carelessly. He speaks with the greatest of knowledge and says we have to find that solution within two years. The time factor is important-vitally important-in the world today.
I therefore say that, although we cannot afford to leave our people undefended at this time, we must redouble our diplomatic, political and social efforts to find a way to avert war, and to make unnecessary speeches such as I am making this afternoon. We must secure the peace and continue toward a realization of the four freedoms by all men, and the relief of our people from the remotest possibility of another conflict. While we may make these efforts for peace, we must support our armed forces and provide adequate protection for the Canadian people.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise because of a statement made today by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). However, before replying to or making comment in reference to those statements. I wish to add my support to what has been said by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) in bringing to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the government the, shall I say,
lack of efficiency or lack of interest shown by the officials of the Canadian National Railways in respect of shipments through maritime ports, namely Halifax and Saint John.
I am not going to cover the points discussed by the hon. member for St. John-Albert who, I think, laid the case for the maritimes before the minister in a strong, able and efficient manner. If what was said served no other purpose, at least it brought the minister to his feet today to place on record the facts relating to the equalization of freight rates between the ports of Halifax, Saint John and Portland.
While naturally I want to see every possible ton of cargo shipped through Halifax, if that is not possible, then my next thought would be that it should go through the other maritime port of Saint John, rather than through Portland. I wish only to add my sentiments in support of those of the hon. member for St. John-Albert.
I sat and listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton South when, as usual, he placed before the house a dreary and dismal picture of conditions in the maritime provinces, and particularly in his native province of Nova Scotia. He referred to the fact that I had given a statement to the press, and compared it with another statement. It appeared to me that he questioned the accuracy or the truth of what I said. I say to him that that statement was given in good faith, and I believe it to be correct. I am looking forward to the commencement, in the very near future, of the work I have mentioned.
I have had the co-operation of hon. members from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in bringing about improvements in conditions in the maritimes. I resent, and I think many other hon. members will also, the thought thrown out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I was not willing to co-operate with other hon. members in working for the best interests of our province.
The hon. member said that hon. members should be careful as to the accuracy of their statements. I think that reference would apply more to the hon. member than to any other hon. member coming from the maritimes. I say that advisedly, after having listened to the hon. member on many occasions. I remember how he toured the county of Halifax during midsummer of last year along with some of his colleagues. I remember the extravagant statements which were made about the awful conditions in Nova Scotia, that we did not have any industry there, that nothing was going on, that there was no employment, that our farms were run down and so on. His col-
The Address-Mr. Isnor

leagues from the prairie provinces who were down there spoke along similar lines, but they did not dare go as far as the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
I think any hon. member who has had any business experience at all will realize that you cannot attract industry to a place which is always painted as being dead, dreary and dismal as has been done on more than one occasion by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. WRIGHT:: How did it get that way?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not think it is that way. Perhaps I had better give the hon. member some information. I am glad to know that he couples himself with the hon. member for Cape Breton South by saying that it is that way.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about housing in Halifax?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member who has just interrupted me is forever harping on housing, but I have yet to hear him offer anything constructive to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) in the time he has been here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Are you proud of your Halifax houses?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am just as proud of our Halifax houses as I am of the hon. member.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know you do not think much of me.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I hope the hon. member is
ready to treat me with the same respect as I should like to treat him with, and I hope he will not interrupt me again. I feel I should answer him in regard to housing. Those hon. members who have kept in touch with the situation in Halifax realize that, prior to the war, we had a population of something like
60,000.	Because of the active part which Halifax took in the war effort, our population increased to around 135,000, and today it is around 95,000. I am ready to admit that our housing is not as it should be, but we are working toward an objective which will provide more houses for our people. We are not just talking about houses; we are making some constructive suggestions. At the present time there is under way a project which will provide five to six hundred houses. The contracts have already been let. There is another project in the offing which I hope will be under way within a month and which will provide another hundred houses. Those are concrete,

definite things, and I hope the hon. member will accept that as an answer to what he said about housing.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Then there is the $17,000,000; do not forget that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member has always been ready to help me out. We are grateful to the Minister of Transport for showing the interest he has, not only in the great port of Halifax but also in the port of Saint John. In that connection I might say that we have definite assurance from the national harbours board that a new steel shed will be erected, at an estimated cost of $600,000, on pier 26 as soon as the steel is available. Plans and specifications have been prepared for the erection in a year's time of a modern concrete pier with two steel sheds. The existing pier is 600 feet long by 160 feet wide, and the proposed new pier, as planned at present, will be 700 feet long by 270 feet wide. The additional length will permit berthing two coastal size vessels on either side, whereas the present pier can accommodate only one on either side. It is estimated that the cost of this will be something like $3,900,000. Then there are other expenditures in connection with maintenance, totalling $246,000. In spite of all the unfair criticism that has been offered by the opposition, I think the Minister of Transport and the national harbours board are doing fairly well for Halifax.
Then a word as to the accuracy of statements. On more than one occasion the hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred to the closing down of the Trenton steel works and the unemployment that was created. For the benefit of the prairie members of the C.C.F., I should like to quote from the Eastern Chronicle of February 5, 1948, as follows:
Two major industries of Pictou county, the Eastern Car Company Limited and the Acadia Coal Company Limited continued their steady progress towards higher peaks of production, corporation figures tabulated for the month of January disclose.
An all-time record was set in the Eastern car shops, where the working force turned out fifty-ton boxcars at higher capacity per day than ever before experienced in the company's near forty-year history. Three hundred and eighty-six boxcars rolled from the assembly lines in January, all steel wood-lined, a number considerably greater than former figures on this type of construction. Some years ago, company officials said, wooden boxcars, i.e., unlined, were built faster than the current order is being handled, but the January, 1948, record exceeds the old wood type construction speed, in that the work involved on the present order greatly exceeds the old pattern.

The Address-Mr. Isnor
Seventeen hundred cars are being built by Eastern Car for the Canadian National Railways. with the end of the order scheduled for March.
I might mention for the information of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that in addition to these 1,700 cars, 250 seventy-ton hopper cars are being built, which order will run into something like $1,300,000 and will provide employment for a period of eight months. During the same midsummer period of last year, hon. members referred to the large lay-offs which had occurred in the Halifax dockyards. I regret that there were lay-offs in the Halifax dockyard, but I should like to place the actual facts before the house, so that they will realize that industry in Halifax is not completely run down. In 1939 there were something like 274 men on the payroll at the Halifax dockyard. During the war that number naturally increased, rising from 274 to 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 and up to 4,000. Then there was a drop, and the members of the C.C.F. went to Nova Scotia and told of the awful conditions in Halifax, of 500 employees being laid off today, 550 the next day, and so on. But actually today there are 1,890 employees on the payroll of the Halifax dockyard and they look to be fairly permanent. I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because of the effect which it is having on the rest of Canada and upon our province and particularly the city of Halifax of having men spread gloomy tales. You cannot build up if you are continually tearing down and belittling your own industries.
What I have said about the Halifax dockyard applies also to the adjacent shipyard. Not so many years ago we had the old Halifax Graving Dock Company there, employing from 150 to 250 men. Then came along what I consider was a real improvement, Halifax Shipyards Limited. They employed very large numbers of men, naturally, during the war doing ship repair work and constructing destroyers. I was interested in finding out the actual employment conditions in the Halifax shipyard, so I telephoned the general manager and asked him to be good enough to tell me the number of emplo3'ees on his payroll the previous month; that was about two months ago. I ascertained that there were 1.479 men employed at the Halifax shipyard, and at the subsidiary in Dartmouth, 374 men, or a total of 1.853, as against 250 or 300 employed years ago by the smaller company. That is the kind of figures the members of the C.C.F. never use. Instead, they use the lowest possible employment figure. In that way they do not, particularly the hon. member for Cape Breton South, do justice to their own part of the country, and that is to be regretted.
I believe I am speaking for the membership generally from the maritimes, irrespective of where they sit in this house, when I say that we regret that any one member should continually cry down his native province, as has been done for so long in this house. We recognize, of course, the fact that employment is not as good as it should be in our part of the country. We are not so situated as to enjoy markets such as they have in other parts of Canada. We have a population in Nova Scotia of around 600,000; in New Brunswick 500,000, and in Prince Edward Island, something like 100,000, or all told, a population of 1,200,000 for the maritime provinces, as against 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 in Ontario, concentrated around the large cities and furnishing, therefore, a readily available market for industrial production. But we still can brag of a certain number of industries in our province; and for the benefit of the hon. member for Cape Breton South I think I should give a few facts, so that he will have this information and perhaps use it in a different way from what he has been accustomed to doing in the past.
We have 1,281 industries in Nova Scotia, employing 38,000 men, paying wages of $60.000,000, and producing $204 million worth of goods. That may not be large in the eyes of members from Ontario, but to us it means something. Sixty million dollars in wages means a lot in a province of our size. Our manufacturers are shipping their goods to every part of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have one of the oldest coffee and spice firms, Schwartz, in our province, shipping its products right across Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, and to the West Indies and overseas as well. We have Moir's chocolates, perhaps the finest chocolates sold in Canada today.
Mr. CRUICKSI-IANK: Any samples?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I feel sure that if they knew the desire of the hon. member for Fraser Valley they would be only too pleased to send him some.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Please see that they get that information.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I could go on for the benefit of my C.C.F. friends and tell them more about Nova Scotia. I could tell them that we have 33,000 farms in the province, notwithstanding that the members from the prairies who are farmers go down there and try to tell them how to make money and how it is possible to be successful when they are so unsuccessful themselves. Our farmers are still able to get a living
The Address-Mr. Isnor

off their farms. Our 33,000 farms maintain a population of 150,000. They produce 7,000,000 pounds of dairy butter, which is not bad for a small province. So I do not think we are so badly off in our province. We produce the finest apples grown in Canada, with a productive capacity of 2,000,000 barrels a year, the greater portion of which has in the past gone to the United Kingdom; but now that the whole of Canada has become acquainted with our apple juice, we are looking forward to markets for that product within Canada.
On motion of Mr. Isnor the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if there is any possible chance of veterans legislation being brought into the house this week?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The resolution to set up the veterans affairs committee will appear on the order paper before the end of this week, and I can assure the hon. member that the legislation will be brought forward just as soon as possible thereafter.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 12, 1948