[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of special committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Mutch.

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

Mr. PROBE :: 1.	How much insurance is in force under the Veterans Insurance Act, and how many veterans are involved?
2.	How many veterans have been refused insurance under the terms of this act since its inception?


Mr. GREGG:: Return as at June S, 1948:
1.	Veterans' insurance in force, $55,038,465. Number of insured lives, including veterans and others eligible under the Veterans Insurance Act, 18.463.
2.	115.


TAXATION AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES- ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	How much would be the payments to Ontario and Quebec under the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rentals Agreement Act, 1947, in respect of each of the years 1947 and 1948 if those two provinces had entered the agreements?
2.	What was the amount of the collections by the federal treasury under (a) individual income tax; (b) corporation income tax; (c) succession duties, for each of those provinces in the fiscal year 1947-48?
3.	Have either of those two provinces entered the tax fields, exclusive use of which was asked for by the dominion beyond the point which would be allowed under the agreements; and if so, what tax fields and to what extent?
4.	If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative does the federal treasury now lose in revenue or have to pay any rebate or make any offsetting adjustment to the taxpayers of Ontario and Quebec as a result; and if so, how much?


Mr. BELZILE:: 1.	Preliminary estimates of payments which would be payable to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec under the Dominion-Provincial
Tax Rentals Agreement Act, 1947, in respect of the years 1947 and 1948, if these two provinces had entered the agreements, are as follows:
1947	1948
Ontario	 $74,012,000 $77,288,000
Quebec	 63,056,000	65,929,000
2.	Total collections by the dominion government of individual income tax, corporation income tax and succession duties in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec during the fiscal year 1947-48 were as follows:
Individual* Corporation**
Income	Income	SuccessionTax	Tax	DutiesOntario $302,406,377 $150,466,340 $15,860,474 Quebec 171,773,056	107,480,594	7,807,023
*Does not include gift tax or deferred tax.
**Does not include excess profits tax or special tax on distribution of accumulated surpluses in the case of private companies.
3.	Any provincial government which signs the agreement undertakes not to impose or permit any of its municipalities to impose an income tax or a corporation tax or a corporation income tax, with the exception of (1) a defined 5 per cent tax on corporate income earned within the province (to be levied only until its abolition is requested by the dominion); and (2) any tax on income derived from mining operations or from logging operations levied by the province, or by a municipality in lieu of a tax on property. The dominion does not ask for the exclusive right to levy succession duties.
Neither Ontario nor Quebec has levied an individual income tax.
Both of these provinces, however, have levied a corporation income tax of 7 per cent. This rate is 2 per cent higher than the rate of tax which agreeing provinces may levy under the terms of the agreement.
Ontario and Quebec have also various specific taxes on corporations, such as taxes on capital, taxes on premium income of insurance companies, taxes on railway mileage, etc., which could not be levied under the agreement.
Both Ontario and Quebec levy succession duties which they could continue to levy under the agreement, if they so desired.
4.	The dominion treasury does not lose any revenue as a result of Ontario and Quebec using tax fields, the right to use which they
Questions

would rent to the dominion if they signed an agreement. If these provinces signed agreements, the dominion treasury would have to make substantial payments to the two provincial governments, but certain taxpayers in the two provinces would pa}7 less in taxes than the}7 do now.
Succession duties paid to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec may be deducted by the taxpayer from succession duties payable to the dominion government up to one-half the amount of the dominion duty. However, this situation would continue if either province entered into an agreement and chose to remain in the succession duty field.


IMMIGRATION FROM BRITAIN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any central register in Britain for those who want to emigrate to Canada?
2.	As to the announcement made on Thursday, June 3, in the British house by Philip J. Noel-Baker, Secretary for Commonwealth Relations, that 300.000- Britons are waiting to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, has the government of Britain any figures in reference to Canada?
3.	What are the figures for Canada of Britons ready to come here; in what cities can they register; what are the conditions governing their coming and what cash are they allowed in dollars?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	No. It is not necessary for a British subject to register before coming to Canada. The immigration regulations provide for the admission of a British subject by birth or naturalization in the United Kingdom who is in good health and in possession of sufficient means to maintain himself until he becomes established in this country or is destined to relatives or friends in a position and willing to assist him. The immigration branch have centrally located offices in London and Glasgow and will be opening offices at Liverpool and Belfast shortly.
2.	Information not available.
3.	No information available as prior registration not required. See answer to question No. 1 regarding conditions for coming to Canada. It is understood that British emigrants leaving the United Kingdom are allowed the transfer of 11,000 per annum for four years.


TORONTO POSTMASTER
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has anyone yet been appointed as director of the post office in Toronto?
2.	If so, by whom w7as he appointed, and where did he reside before?

3.	Has the government adopted the policy of transferring heads of post offices in other cities to Toronto?
4.	If so, when -was such a policy inaugurated by the government instead of the principle of promotion?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1 and 2. Mr. W. M. MacLean, postmaster, Hamilton, has been selected by the civil service commission for promotion to the position of postmaster, Toronto, as a result of a competition amongst employees of the Toronto postal district.
3 and 4. In adherence to the principle of promotion which requires the holding of competitions, it has been the policy for many years to advertise vacancies in the more important positions amongst employees of the postal district concerned and to promote the best qualified candidate.


PURCHASE OF FORD HOTEL BUILDING, MONTREAL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are negotiations now being conducted or have they been completed in connection with the purchase by the dominion government of the Ford hotel in Montreal?
2.	If the sale has been completed what is the amount of the purchase price?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not completed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How much gold (in ounces and value) is presently held in Canada by (a) the Canadian government; (b) the Bank of Canada; (c) Foreign Exchange Control Board; (d) chartered banks?
2.	Hoiv much gold is held on behalf of foreign governments?
3.	How much gold was produced in Canada during each of the years 1942 to 1947?
4.	How much gold was exported from Canada and to what countries in each of those years?



TARIFF BOARD ACT


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (for the Minister of Finance) moved:: That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Tariff Board Act in respect to the tenure of office of and appointment of members of the tariff board to serve in a temporary capacity; to bring the staff of the board under the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act; to repeal obsolete provisions; and to

Inquiries of the Ministry
increase the salary of the chairman of the board from twelve thousand to fifteen thousand dollars annually.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. AVHITE (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the shift in production from butter to cheese, will he tell the house what plans, if any, have been made to protect the consumer from a butter shortage this coming winter?


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: This matter will be taken into consideration, and an answer will be given later.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It is the same answer as was given before.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Little Sir Echo. TRANSPORT



UNLICENSED PASSENGER SHIPS ON INLAND WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret that I did not have time to give him advance notice of it, but it was only since I came into the house this morning the matter was drawn to my attention by the secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that passengers are being carried on ships in Canada's inland waters without a passenger licence?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Representations have been made to me that ships have been operating through the canals without the necessary life-saving equipment. I have gone into some of these cases. I found in one instance that this is not being done. I am investigating the other cases which have been brought to my attention, and if the facts are in accordance with the charges made, action will be taken accordingly.


Angus MacInnis: The minister referred to the carrying of life-saving equipment. I was aware of that, too; but I was asking more particularly about the question of passenger licences.


Lionel Chevrier: The complaints I received were with reference to carrying passengers in excess of the life-saving equipment. The question asked was answered in that light.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister investigate the matter of passenger licences as well?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. If I remember correctly, this is the first instance where I have heard representations of that kind. The others were as suggested a minute ago.



SHORTAGE OF PERSONNEL ON SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should lake to address a question to the Minister of Transport; since we are sitting in the mornings, there was no opportunity to give notice to the minister. My question comes from the same source as that of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and has to do with ships sailing on Canada's inland waters. On those ships there has been a serious shortage of personnel. Has this been brought to the minister's attention; if so, what steps can he take to remedy the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: Instances have been brought to my attention, although I do not know whether they include the particular question the hon. member has in mind. I would not attempt, however, to reply to the hon. member's question at this time. I shall look into the matter.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Does the minister not consider that undermanned ships are a menace to navigation of other ships which are fully manned? Is there not danger of collision?


Lionel Chevrier: Ships have to be manned by a certain crew. If they are undermanned, a breach of the regulations or of the act has been committed. If reports as to breaches of the act are brought to my attention and prove to be accurate, I shall deal with them accordingly.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, before the session closes, would the Attorney General (Mr. Ilsley), by means of
Inquiries of the Ministry

reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, under the authority of the Supreme Court Act, give consideration to the question of oleomargarine, both as to its national and international implications? Perhaps the minister will take my question as a notice, and reply tomorrow.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Attorney General) :: All right.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C- BLACK (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). As the minister is not in his seat, perhaps his parliamentary assistant will answer. When may we expect printed copies of the Income Tax Act? I encouraged the minister to have the legislation advanced, and it received second reading on Tuesday. I made inquiries late this morning, but thus far I have been unable to obtain a copy.
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I understand the bill has had first reading. If it has, then it is only a matter of printing.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The bill has had second reading.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I shall look into the matter and find out why the bill has not been distributed. It should have been.


Gordon Graydon: The farmers would like to have a look at it.


An hon. MEMBER:: The election is over.
[Later, in committee of the whole'A


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This morning the hon. member for Cumberland asked a question in reference to printed copies of the income tax bill not being available. I want to point out that it is now in the boxes of hon. members. It is a lengthy document, and that was the reason for the delay.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, of which I have given notice. Have officials of the department of education in Manitoba communicated with the Department of Transport or any other department of the federal government request-

ing an increase in the educational grant for the operation of a school at Churchill?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot speak for any other department but my own. So far as the Department of Transport is concerned, no application has been made for a grant with reference to education.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 339, to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Payment of $100,000 a year for ten years authorized.
Thomas Langton Church: This is a most laudable bill. I saw the battlefields many years ago, when the fields and the monuments were in a state of decay. The government has done good work in the past few years in reconditioning these battlefields, and I commend them for what has been done. Canada has not shown the gratitude she owes to her heroes of the past.
I am pleased to see this action to increase the grant to preserve these national monuments, so that they may impress properly the new settlers who come up the St. Lawrence when they first arrive in Canada. As they pass these historic sites they will learn something of the other people who came to Canada in the early days.
I should like to see the principle of the bill applied in the Niagara district. A former Ontario government did good work in reconditioning the battlefields of the war of 1812-14, in which important engagements took place in the Niagara district. There is still, however, a great deal of work to be done there. I hope the government will continue its present policy and make it national in scope. This work of improvement should be a national project, so that we may properly honour the heroes who have served us.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Acquisition of certain lands authorized.
Mr. FULTON:: This is an unusual section, inasmuch as it gives notice in advance that

National Battlefields at Quebec
the government, or a government agency, intends to buy a certain tract of land. Normally this would give opportunity to speculators to get in ahead, and then hold up government purchasers for a big price. Have any steps been taken to prevent the government's being held up in this way?


Mr. BELZILE:: No expenditure is involved in this transaction, other than the normal payment for the necessary deeds and documents. We will acquire this land from the national harbours board, and it will be only a matter of a simple transfer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the parliamentary assistant considered my suggestion of the other evening, namely, to take in some land at the mouth of the Montmorency river, at which point there was severe fighting between Wolfe and Montcalm; also the land on the isle of Orleans where Wolfe's camps were located, and where the lines must be still visible, and at Point Levis, where further lines were established? Is it the intention to include all these historic sites for preservation?


Gleason Belzile: As the hon. member for Davenport knows, most of that part situated east of the city of Quebec, alongside the Montmorency river, is low and marshy. That was the site of Wolfe's first disembarkation. On account of the low and marshy land I do not believe it would be practicable; on the contrary it would be difficult and expensive, to beautify those grounds. I understand that higher up the river and above the falls the fields are now occupied by a golf course and other developments of the kind; the grounds are well cared for, and cairns have been erected to commemorate what happened there. They were put up by the historical society of Quebec.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about lie d'Orleans and Point Levis?


Gleason Belzile: That is farming country, and I do not know what could be done there.


Mr. FRASER:: If the commission are doing any repair work on this property I hope they will not make a mess of it as the national parks commission did at Fort Prince of M ales at Churchill. An old gateway there had fallen down, and they erected a new one of concrete instead of using the old stone with which the other gateway had been built. It spoiled the whole thing.


Gleason Belzile: I can assure the hon. member that this is a beautiful park that is well kept. This commission endeavours to duplicate what was there before.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Where does federal jurisdiction end and provincial jurisdiction begin in connection with these battlefields?


Gleason Belzile: The act of 1908 contained a provision under which any province that contributed $100,000 to the fund would be entitled to appoint one commissioner. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario each contributed $100,000 to the fund, and under section 1 of the act they were entitled to appoint one commissioner, while the federal government appointed seven commissioners. The commissioner for Ontario is Hon. William H. Price.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: The government is to be commended for keeping up this memorial and agreeing to pay from the consolidated revenue fund certain sums of money for its development. I understand that the commission consists of seven members.


Gleason Belzile: Seven federal and two provincial; nine in all.


Edward George McCullough: Could not this commission handle other historic sites across Canada, or are their activities confined to this site in Quebec? There are many historic sites across Canada, such as those commemorating the Red River rebellion, which should be kept up.


Gleason Belzile: This commission was appointed to look after the battlefields of Quebec. Other historic sites in Canada are looked after by different boards or commissions.


Edward George McCullough: Is there not an unnecessary expenditure of money when the one commission could handle all the sites across the country?


Gleason Belzile: A fund was raised to commemorate the centenary of the founding of Quebec by Champlain in 1608. Private subscriptions amounted to some $468,000, and the dominion government added $300,000 in 1908, and the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec added another $200,000. There was some money left over from the cost of the celebration, and the commission was set up and acquired the battlefields of Quebec in order to overcome the neglect of the previous years.


Edward George McCullough: Is this commission responsible to the governor in council?


Gleason Belzile: Oh, yes-to this parliament.


Edward George McCullough: Is the property which it is intended to purchase contiguous to the present site?
National Battlefields at Quebec


Gleason Belzile: It is the actual site of the battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759 and of the battle of Ste. Foy in. 1760.


Edward George McCullough: The new property will be just an extension?


Gleason Belzile: The new property is being bought because a road which ran, along the boundary of the park was moved by the municipality of Sillery. This left about 60,000 square feet of land between the old Champlain road-, and the new road. There was a bad curve' there which was straightened out. The commission felt that this land should not be left in the hands of the municipality, because it might be sold to someone who would erect a building and spoil the appearance of the park.


Clarence Gillis: I am not opposed to this bill, but after listening to the discussion it seems to me that this is another example of the national government catering to the provinces which might have $100,000 to enable them to come into this national commission. If the bill were to set up a commission to deal with all of Canada, and money were to be spent for the development of historic sites, I would say it was all right, but I do not like the idea of putting a gun to the head of a province and asking for a contribution of $100,000 so that they may come within the scope of this national commission. It is not a national commission; it i.s a commission to look after historic sites in the two central provinces from a national point of view. That is what it means.
Personally I do not like the idea of perpetuating or glorifying war. I do not like the idea of keeping before our children memories of battles that were fought, of people who died in battle and of victories we were supposed to have won. You do not win anything in a war. As long as we keep reminding our people of war by monuments of this kind; as long as we continue to glorify war and perpetuate the idea of war, we will forget that no one ever wins anything from war. There is nothing to glorify.
I sat on the reconstruction committee in 1942 along with many members of this house. Representations were made by people from every section of the country and every social stratum as to the rehabilitation of this country following war. The consensus of opinion of that committee was that after the second world war was over there were to be no more stone monuments to commemorate it. The whole house endorsed the committee's recommendation that the kind of monument to be erected should be a cultural centre in every section of Canada to commemorate those who

had laid down their lives in the preservation of freedom. I remember hearing representations from the library association, representing all Canada, that a national library should be established, and today in Ottawa a national convention is being held at which that very subject will be discussed. It. disturbs me to find how short are the memories of the members of this house. Everjdjody was agreed then on the kind of monument we should erect, but now, only a few years later, all that seems to have been forgotten. Now we have before us a bill setting up a commission, which is national in name only, since it relates to only two provinces and ignores entirely the principle that was laid down by the reconstruction committee of 1942. These battlefields tend to perpetuate war. The more money you spend on this kind of thing, the more strongly people will feel that there must be other wars. But apparently the government has adopted the policy of catering to a province which can put up $100,000 and is setting up a national commission which will be paid for by the taxpayers of all. Canada; and mind you, every province will contribute its proportionate share, although they are not all included in this scheme. In my own part of the country there are many historic sites, but to have anything done about them you have almost to use a miner's rod to search out who is responsible for earing for them. I wish good luck to Quebec, but the principle of perpetuating war by monuments and that kind of thing is contrary to my way of thinking.
I am disappointed that the recommendations of the reconstruction committee with regard to the development of cultural centres across this country as war memorials are not being carried out by this bill. The bill rather indicates to me that we are going back to where we left off, educating our people in the glorification of war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am afraid that my hon. friend is not familiar with the purpose of the vote before the house. I attended the tercentenary celebration of the founding of Quebec by the great Champlain, and I know that those who were in charge of the program thought that it would be a sad mistake to leave what is now a very beautiful park in Quebec city, which embraces the battlefield of the Plains of Abraham as well as the battlefield of Ste. Foy, to be exploited by anybody and everybody. From the beginning I have been a supporter of this park. As the parliamentary assistant has very well said the purpose of this vote is to acquire additional land to complete the outline of the park, land which might otherwise be acquired by private individuals who would exploit it, so that it would be of no benefit whatever to that great park. It is a

National Battlefields at Quebec
magnificent park, Mr. Chairman, and is very well looked after. There are only two monuments there, one to Wolfe, and the one at Ste. Foy, which suggest that the park was once a battlefield.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South was not fair. He apparently forgot Louisburg, Nova Scotia, where the government took over a very large acreage, restored the old lands, and made a great park out of the territory adjacent to the ruins of old Fort Louisbourg. The same can be said of Fort Beausejour. My hon. friend has been there, I am sure; for he could hardly pass it without going in. All that land around Beausejour has been acquired and made into a beautiful park. People go there to see the museum and admire the park.
I am in accord with that, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe in forgetting the past. I think we should hold more to the past than we have been doing.
Some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia were in order, but he did not seem to know that all our historic sites are looked after by the historic sites and monuments board. No matter where you go in the west you will find monuments erected by the board. They are erecting a number of them now'.


Clarence Gillis: Why not put them all under one commission?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The national battlefields commission at Quebec was established long before the historic sites and monuments board. I am not arguing that all these sites should come under one body. I am arguing that this is a sound vote, because it will take out of private circulation a piece of property w'hich should be added to a great national park in a city that is growing very rapidly; it will eventually have half a million population and will need every foot of that park.


Mr. McIVOR:: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You ought to be glad you can't.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I read in the old Book that Moses set up a stone and said: By this stone ye shall know of the victory that Israel won over the Egyptians. It would be a sad day for Canada if our historic sites should be overgrown with weeds. These things tell their tale, and I do not think this money is badly spent.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I certainly cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Our battlefields in this country show to coming generations what the veterans of the past did to make this country what it is. It would be a shame to allow the Plains of Abraham, Queenston Heights and other battlefields throughout Canada to become overgrown with weeds. Queenston Heights commemorates the days when the French and British fought side by side in the defence of this country. To keep these historic sites in a proper state of preservation certainly will not antagonize the people of the United States, but will remind them of how a handful of people in this country preserved their homes and their freedom. Without such monuments the coming generations would have little to remind them of what the pioneers in Canada did and suffered and died for in order to make this country what it is today.
I do not believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South wants all of these historic sites obliterated. They Should be turned into the finest parks we can possibly make, so that our people will realize that wars do not help us very much. If it is necessary to fight a war for an ideal, whether it is won or lost, the heroes of that war on both sides should be commemorated in a proper manner.


Clarence Gillis: By remembering the ideal, and doing something about it.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I partly agree with my colleague from Nova Scotia, but I have to separate from him if he says that the historic sites should not be preserved and historic monuments ..set up. I feel that there has been some discrimination against the historic sites of the! maritime provinces. I believe preference is given to the city of Quebec. I am not opposed to this Jjull; I am in favour of it. I am in favour of what the minister has said, but I wish to point out that in the maritime provinces we have historic sites of great importance to this country. One of these sites is Fort Louisbourg, in the constituency of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. Others are Fort Beausejour, in Westmorland county, adjoining my own constituency; Fort Cumberland, in Cumberland county, and the oldest site of all, Fort Anne, at Annapolis Royal. These sites have been commemorated and preserved to an extent, but it was done belatedly by the federal authorities. A museum has been established at Fort Beausejour, another at Annapolis, and one at Louisburg. I want to pay tribute to Viscount Bennett who gave his support and built the museum at Beausejour during the years of the depression. That museum was erected at the instance of that great Canadian, Doctor J. C. Webster, C.M.G., now chairman of the historical sites and monuments commission. He has done a magnificent
Criminal Code

work for Canada. The museum was established and filled to overflowing with collections from our historical past. They are now appealing to the government for an. extension to the building. They have already had one addition, but they want further space. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that this work was not done a hundred years before it was. If it had not been proceeded with by the late Viscount Bennett and Doctor Webster I doubt whether it would ever have been established, and whether many of these priceless relics of the past would have been preserved. I am in favour of this bill, and I want the minister and the government to give further consideration to the extension of these historic sites in the maritime provinces and give further grants to the museums in these three places to which I have referred in order that such relics of the past that we have may be preserved for all time, and that whatever further relics can be secured may be housed and the historic sites commission made responsible for their preservation.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say that the inscription on the memorial on the Plains of Abraham should be in all the history books of this country. I shall never forget what Macaulay said about the principle embodied in this bill. He said:
The various tombs of the captains have been sought and repaired and embellished. It is impossible not to respect the sentiment which manifests itself in these tokens. It is a sentiment which appeals to the higher and purer part of human nature and adds not a little to the strength of states. A people that takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered.
I commend to the government that principle enunciated by Macaulay and express the hope that all the battlefields and historic sites in Canada will be marked out and' honoured.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General, for the Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 335, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

On section 1-Percentage deduction retained by the association.
Thomas Langton Church: We passed a bill the other night about horses consumed for meat. Is there any necessity for this one now? Since they have eaten all the horses, there will be no further need for racetracks.


Ernest Bertrand: I am told there are a few left.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Railway service-
500. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital, $3,547,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I can clear up some of the points that were left in abeyance last evening.
The hon. member for Peterborough West asked some questions with reference to lots 122, 123 and 124, concession 1, west Yonge street. He felt that the sale price in comparison with the purchase price a few years previously was high. I have inquired into the details of the sale and I find that these lots, 122, 123 and 124, concession 1 west of Yonge street, township of East Gwillimbury, are comprised in a parcel of marshland 400 feet wide by 2,400 feet long, 21 acres in extent. This parcel of land was purchased as the site for a proposed channel connecting the east and west branches of the Holland river. The property is low-lying marshland of no value to the department and of little value to anyone else unless reclaimed by diking and pumping. This parcel was advertised, together with other parcels, but no tender being received, the sale price was set by negotiation.
There was a question with regard to weeds, and I assured my hon. friend the member for Muskoka-Ontario that I would look into the matter. I have a statement which I think will meet with his approval. I did not refer the matter to the Department of Justice but to counsel in my own department and the statement, I think, meets the position.
In the first place, there is no statutory obligation to cut weeds growing in navigable

Supply-Transport
waters. Second, the Department of Transport has hitherto cut weeds in the main channels of the Trent canal system, and the department will continue this practice. In the third place, in the case of other channels than main channels of the Trent canal system, where weeds impede the navigation of small boats the department will consider in each case whether it is in the public interest to make an expenditure for cutting weeds. Fourth, the Department of Transport has no responsibility with respect to weed cutting in navigable waters other than in the canals under its jurisdiction.
There was some question last night in connection with the item which provided for the lightship Lurcher, and I was asked why we had not purchased corvettes from War Assets Corporation. There are several technical reasons why corvettes and minesweepers would not answer the purpose. I have them listed here:
The conversion of corvettes and minesweepers was carefully considered by technical officers of the department and they were found to be unsuitable as lighthouse supply and buoy vessels. Here are some of the characteristics which must be present on supply and buoy vessels if they are to function efficiently:
1.	Wall-sided bow in order to approach buoys without causing damage.
2.	Sea kindliness in order to be able to lift buoys in fairly rough weather.
3.	A long well-deck forward and near the waterline in order to facilitate lifting of buoys and providing area for storage of buoys, also anchors and chains.
4.	Considerable cargo capacity.
5.	Shell plates and scantlings in general of rugged construction.
The above requirements are not found in corvettes, which were built for a special purpose; the full form, the general lay-out, their light construction and excessive power make them unsuitable vessels for such alterations.
Corvettes, on account of their size, are not suitable for use as lightships; and minesweepers, in addition to being overpowered, are not of suitable hull shape for use as lightships on exposed stations. The lightship must have much more freeboard than an ordinary vessel and be of a special form so that it can stay on station in all weathers. Furthermore, the ship requires to be fitted with a large amount of special equipment. The main propulsion unit on a lightship vessel is relatively small, thus providing the extra space required for the special equipment. In addition, the lightship requires large bunker and freshwater capacity so as to minimize the necessity of constant attention and the frequent delivery of supply while on station.
Minesweeper hulls, in view of their shape and general lay-out, could not be held at anchor on exposed stations.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I support the principle of this vote for the car ferry and terminals and all the rest of it, of which 81,360,000 is a re vote this year, and I support it because I have always advocated the confederation principle of each for all and all for each. No doubt what is for the good of the maritimes is for the good of the rest of the country. I have always been a believer in that policy, and have never faltered in that belief.
I would point out to the minister, however, that the principle of this vote should be extended to other parts of the country. I could discuss questions in connection with two or three other items but I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly. We have an old boat, the Northumberland, which came from the same place that is being serviced by this new car ferry. It has been operating in the Niagara district, and when I visited that part of the province last week end I saw people lined up at the station waiting for trains. We need a car ferry to take care of the large volume of traffic that is moving from the Niagara district to Toronto, and there is need also for a car ferry to serve the lake Erie district. Port Dover, Port Huron and Port Stanley are idle because of lack of car ferry service across lake Erie. The provision of an adequate car ferry service in that part of the province would greatly improve the coal situation in western Ontario, and I trust that when the recess comes the minister will seriously get down to that program. The old boat which has been serving the Niagara district for the last thirty years or more was sent up to us because it was not good enough for the maritimes.
The principle of this vote should certainly be extended. In my opinion the time has come for a maritime commission on the great lakes, because what is good for the maritimes or for Ontario or for western Canada is good for the rest of the provinces. I urge the minister to study the situation. I have visited United States ports along these lakes and I can assure the minister that we are miles behind them in marine services on the upper great lakes.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I wish to make a few remarks about transportation problems at
Supply-Transport

Borden and Tormentine. In the first place, I wish to compliment the minister and his department on the excellent motor vessel Q.S.M.V. Abegweit. It is without doubt the best icebreaker in the world. Last winter, although the ice was not abnormally heavy, it was the usual kind of season and the ferry was able to keep to its schedules with reasonable regularity. This is commendable, and I am sure our winter transportation problems are solved. But we still have a bottleneck at Borden and Tormentine. I submit that as long as we have a ferry operating on two services-by that I mean operating for railway and operating for automobile and bus traffic-we shall continue to have difficulties. If the trains are late, the ferry must wait to take over freight cars, express cars, mail cars and passengers. Consequently long lines of automobiles are delayed in the heat at Borden or Tormentine and often must wait one or two hours before crossing.
1 believe this bottleneck would be lessened if we had an auxiliary ferry. An auxiliary ferry would not cost very much, because it would not operate in the wintertime and would not need to be built as strongly as the present Abegweit. If we had such an auxiliary steamer it could operate on schedule and tourists or other persons wishing to cross over in automobiles or trucks would know with reasonable certainty when the crossing could be expected and would not be there waiting many hours in the heat for a crossing. This would materially help our tourist industry and would also help the export of products of the farm and sea.
I was pleased that the minister was able to have the railway car deck planked to permit trucks to drive off and on under their own power. During the past autumn and this spring trucks loaded with perishable products often had to wait from one to two hours for a crossing. If you had a load of smelts or lobsters going to New York, Boston or Philadelphia, this loss of time was important and often discouraged the shipping of such products to those markets.
I urge upon the minister the necessity of exploring the possibilities of procuring an auxiliary steamship solely for the purpose of carrying automobiles and trucks. I am sure that if such a steamer is available, and if the docks can be made to accommodate it, our transport problems will be much lessened in the future. I would ask the minister to give this matter his best consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When we started on this item this morning the minister made a statement in regard to the property on the Trent canal that was sold. 1 referred to lots 122, 123 and 124, concession 1, west Yonge street. He said he would have to have diking done, and so on, to take care of that. This is excellent truck garden land. The property adjoining it cannot be bought today for $500 an acre. I still say that the government should have got more than $5 an acre for this land, and I will continue to say it because the advice I have received from people who know is that the property right next to it cannot be bought for $500 an acre.


Lionel Chevrier: Why did they not
tender?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They never had a chance to tender.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they did.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where did you advertise?


Lionel Chevrier: The lots were advertised.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where?


Lionel Chevrier: In the press.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What press? My advice is that this property was not advertised.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is free to make his statement if he wants to.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have made it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am making the statement now that the price obtained for these lots was a reasonable one. We advertised, and there were no bidders. AVhen there are no bidders, the practice is to sell by negotiation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right. I am asking whether it was advertised.


Lionel Chevrier: It was advertised in the press-the Toronto press.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In what press was it advertised? That is something I cannot find out. I have tried to find out.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. In the return that was tabled on each one of the lots sold, with the exception of lots 122, 123 and 124, it is set out that the sale was made by tender.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And there was only one tender.


Lionel Chevrier: There was only one
tender in connection with the property other than lots 122, 123 and 124. For them no tender at all was submitted.

Supply-Transport


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There was just an. offer to buy, but it was not advertised.


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that lots 122, 123 and 124 were advertised along with the other parcels. If my hon. friend wants to maintain that this parcel was noc advertised, I am saying it was, on the information I have received from my officers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In what papers was it advertised?


Lionel Chevrier: I will find out and tell the hon. gentleman.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right.


William Henry Golding: Order. The item before the committee now is the Prince Edward Island car terminals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is an omnibus item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As soon as we went into committee this morning the minister made a statement. I have the right to answer that ' statement and say what I like about it in reply to what the minister had to say, irrespective of what item we are on.


William Henry Golding: Order. That was with the consent of the committee. The minister was just giving information that last night he promised to give. The item before the committee now is the car ferry in Prince Edward Island.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but we have a problem to discuss.


William Henry Golding: I would also point out to the hon. gentleman that when he is discussing this matter he is supposed to address the Chair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am addressing the Chair.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Peterborough West is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. This particular item was held up last night in order to give the minister an opportunity to reply to both the hon. member for Peterborough West and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. When the minister made his statement I assumed that he was replying to the questions which had been asked by those two hon. members last evening. Therefore if they are not in order, this other item must come back before the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not correct to say that the item was held up by the question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West. I have no objection to discussing the matter. I promised to get this information, and I have obtained it. I do not intend to
object to what the hon. member is doing. If he wants to make a speech on it, let him go ahead.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, I do not want to make a speech. I just asked for information.


Lionel Chevrier: I will get the information.


Percy Chapman Black: I commend the minister for the work that is being done in constructing the car ferries and building the terminals serving Prince Edward Island. The people in that province have waited many long years for this. It is pleasing to know that the new ferry steamers operated so satisfactorily during the winter.
Before this item of $3,547,000 passes I should like to have some further information from the minister. How much of the vote is payable on account of the new car ferry? What is the total cost of the car ferry up to the present time? I should also like to know how much of the appropriation is for construction of the terminals on the Cape Tormentine and Borden sides, and what the total expenditures are for the building of these terminals. Will the minister also indicate whether this appropriation will satisfactorily complete the terminals at both landing points?


Lionel Chevrier: The total estimated cost of the terminals at Tormentine and Borden wras $6,622,000. That estimate was made about a year ago, and had to be revised again this year because of certain increases. It is now fixed at $6,877,900. The hon. gentleman knows of course that all this work is under the supervision of the Canadian National Railways. They are acting as agents for the government. Thus far $3,330,000, including $98,000, has been spent. That money was spent last year and a portion, $3,547,000, is to be spent this year. Of the amount of the estimates, $1,360,000 is a revote. The Canadian Dredge and Dock have the contract for the work at Tormentine, and it is about sixty-four per cent complete.


Percy Chapman Black: Is that a lump sum contract, or a cost plus contract?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, it is not cost plus. I would think there is an escalator clause in the contract. I understand the Canadian National Railways have proceeded in that manner. I must say however that in connection with one of these points-I am not sure whether it was Tormentine or Borden-we were not able to get a contractor to do the work. There were no answers to our advertisements, so we had to proceed by way of negotiation.
At Borden the contractor is Foundation Maritime Limited. They have completed a little more than fifty per cent of their work.
Supply-Transport

It is expected that the Tormentine terminal should be completed by about the middle of May or June, 1949, and it is expected that the work at Borden will be completed at about the same time.


Percy Chapman Black: At what place was the department unable to secure a contractor?


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking from memory, and for that reason I do not wish to be held too closely to what I say. I believe, however, it was for the work at Borden. The department advertised but received no bids. This was a time when material costs were high.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood from the minister that the work was proceeding at Borden.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes; we finally gave a contract. But we had difficulty in getting a contractor to do the work.


Percy Chapman Black: What was the name of the contractor?


Lionel Chevrier: At Borden the contractors are Foundation Maritime Limited and Canadian Dredge and Dock Company. The Canadian Dredge and Dock Company have the contract for the work outside the jetty, including the extension and filling, and inside the jetty the construction is being done by Foundation Maritime Limited.
The hon. member asked as to the final cost of the Prince Edward Island car ferry. Again I speak from memory, but I believe it is a little over $7 million. I would not like to say whether it is $7,200,000 or $7,100,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the
appropriation now before the committee complete the terminals at Tormentine and Borden?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it will. This year we are going to spend $3,500,000, and we have already spent $3,300,000. That makes the revised estimate of $6,800,000 which I gave a few moments ago.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister mind putting a little information on the record? In answer to the hon. member for Cumberland the minister said that the contract under discussion was cost-plus, but that it contained an escalator clause. What is a contract with an escalator clause? What i3 the difference between the two?


Lionel Chevrier: A cost-plus contract, as I understood it during the war years, is a contract which provides the payment of a certain fee for the work done, plus cost. To

the contract are annexed memoranda of the items of cost which may be charged. There may be twenty-five or there may be ten items of cost. The escalator clause does not include a series of cost items, but it does provide that if there is an increase, for instance, in wages and materials after the contract has been entered into, such increase may be charged up in addition to the fixed amount of the contract, always subject to audit.


Clarence Gillis: In effect there is not much difference.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Oh, yes.


Clarence Gillis: If that is so, why does the Department of Public Works hold up a job every year-and I think it is still being held up-for a dry dock at Saint John, New Brunswick, because they did not want a contract with an escalator clause? Is the escalator regulated to work both ways, or does it just go up? Is it regulated so that it will work the other way? My understanding is that a contract is based upon an estimate; ' then if you are out one way or another in your figures, or if there is additional cost, such as wages or the like, the escalator clause provides that you can revise the figure. But where a contract is let in which a large amount of money is involved, does the escalator clause permit departmental officials to turn the machine downward so as to protect public funds if it develops that the estimate was too high?


Lionel Chevrier: The contract in which there is an escalator clause proceeds on the assumption of a basic amount. If wages rise above that, the escalator clause provides for an increase. There is no provision for decrease.


Clarence Gillis: It is not only a matter of wages, though?


Mr. McLURE:: I was out of the chamber for a few moments and I did not hear anything that was said under this vote. I wish to say a few words about the ferry system between Borden and Tormentine.
As an outsider I know that there was great difficulty in getting people to tender for the contract work on the Borden side, but the work that has been going on for the past six months under a cost-plus contract is proceeding most satisfactorily. Some hon. members may feel that the vote from time to time for the Borden-Tormentine ferry involves a large amount of money. In actual fact it is only a small amount for the service which the island province requires. Prince Edward Island is the only island province in the

Supply-Transport
dominion, and to the people down there transportation is vital. Over sixty-five per cent of them make their living from agricultural pursuits. During the war our province made a real record in production of the sinews of war, and the farmers are still producing.
For the benefit of some hon. members who may feel that the expenses of our transportation system are high, I should like to place some figures on the record. Let me point out at the beginning that these expenditures are due us under the contract made with us in 1873. The freight handled on the Borden-Tormentine ferry is one of the best-paying freighbhandling operations of the Canadian National Railways system.
I prepared these figures a few days ago, and I had to take those for the month of April. Outward freight figures for that month show that 1,415 cars of potatoes w'ere ferried in April, 1948, from Prince Edward Island to the mainland, or almost 500 cars more than in 1947. The total cars ferried to the end of April for the crop season was 7,046. Practically all of these were for long-haul shipments-the most beneficial from the point of view of the railways. But that was not the only freight ferried in April. In addition there were 20 carloads of eggs, 75 carloads of livestock, 20 carloads of meat, 15 carloads of pulpwood- and ninety per cent of all this was for long-haul carload shipments. Besides these larger movements there were many smaller ones.
I have been referring to the outward freight, but the inward freight is also long-haul freight. There were 119 cars of coal; 40 cars of hay; 24 cars of automobiles; 175 carloads of fertilizer; 245 carloads of flour and feed; 40 carloads of cement; 14 carloads of fruit; 18 carloads of soft drinks-because, as you know, ours is a prohibition province; 15 carloads of sugar and 6 carloads of molasses. In both inward and outward freight there were over 2,500 cars during the month.
When someone gets up and says that this is a large amount to pay for a steamer, I say: No ; we should really have another steamer to assist in carrying our freight. I am not going to urge that at the present time, but I do want to say to the committee that the outgoing and incoming freight that has been produced is simply wonderful for Prince Edward Island. Nothing is too good for our farmers in the way of transportation, and that is why from time to time we advocate better truck service. At the present time the truck service is not what it should be for the exporting of farm products.
The minister said the other day that they were going to plank at least part of the deck 5849-318
of the Abegweit, either with wood or with steel, so that trucks could run on under their own power. I submit that there should be no freight charge over and above what it costs to haul the same freight by truck over a highway. This question has been debated at many sessions, and we did succeed in having truck charges reduced by about fifty per cent. But they should be reduced so that the terms of union in 1873 will be met, and one of those terms was that the ferry should be treated simply as a highway.
Can the minister give the committee definite assurance that the Abegweit will be ready for service before July 1?


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that the planking will take about fourteen days and that the vessel should be in operation in plenty of time to look after the tourist traffic.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As one who has advocated an improvement in the service between the mainland and the island, I want to express my appreciation of the minister's efforts in this connection. He visited the area and made his own investigation, as others have done, and it is pleasant to observe his interest. When I was there last summer I examined, as I had done before, both terminals, and I would like to know whether they would consider a boat that might be specially designed for truck and automobile service. I am thinking of a ship something like the large ones on the great lakes which ferry only trucks and motorcars. The tourist traffic to the island is increasing greatly, as it should, but it will be retarded unless the tourist can get on and off the island more rapidly than he can today.
The facilities at the Wood Island end are not exactly what they should be, and I am sure that if the minister goes there he will decide to improve them. At the Borden end it should be possible to have cars get on and off the boat more quickly. The present ferry is good, but too large to permit this kind of entry and exit. I strongly urge upon the minister that he consider building a boat specially designed for motorcars and trucks which could run in between the trips of the larger boat. WThen I examined the docks I could not make up my mind that they would be suitable for a low-level motorcar and truck traffic ship.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
501. Strait of Canso

Transportation improvements and facilities-capital (revote $260,000), $500,0-00.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I read in the newspapers a report that new ferries were to be provided. I am not particularly opposing that, but I think
Supply-Transport

ferries are outmoded for this particular area. The minister has shown a good deal of vision, and I should like him to consider eliminating the question of a ferry. There is no place for car ferries in these modern times, especially across a strait of that'width. They were all right years ago, but in these days they are too slow. They retard traffic and increase costs beyond what they should be.
This is an ideal location for a bridge. I have surveyed many large bridges, but perhaps I could mention some that I have not surveyed. I am going to try to get down to see the gigantic bridge at Sydney, Australia, which spans the great harbour entrance there. There is no reason why there could not be a similar bridge across the strait of Canso. The minister frequently goes to New York, and he must have seen the gigantic bridge across Hell Gate. There are two giant bridges at San Francisco which span a much greater distance than would have to be spanned across the strait of Canso. At St. Louis there are great bridges across the Mississippi, and they are planning the construction of six more. They are also planning the building of two more very large bridges at San Francisco.
A bridge increases traffic; a ferry retards traffic. Of course if there is no ferry or bridge, there is no traffic. In this day and generation a ferry in that area is altogether outmoded. I strongly recommend to the minister that he keep before him the desirability of bridging that strait. It would not have to be an exceptionally long bridge; I doubt if it would be as long as the bridge at Quebec. It certainly would speed up traffic considerably between Sydney and Montreal and Toronto, and would pay for itself by the reduction in freight charges that would accrue over the years. It would make for expansion of all business in that part of Nova Scotia. I am not opposed to the vote, but I am opposed to the continued use of ferries in preference to bridges.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to make a speech on this subject; I think I have made enough of them. A bridge across the strait of Canso is one of the main issues in the province of Nova Scotia today. In these estimates there is an appropriation of $250,000 to improve the existing ferry facilities. To those who think the government really means something in continuing to survey the possibilities of a bridge across that strait, it looks strange to see such a large amount spent on improving the present facilities.
I questioned the minister in the house a short time ago as to the progress that is being made by the commission of engineers appointed by his department, and when he expects to

receive their report. His reply was, the latter part of July. That was recorded in the press, and I have received several letters about it since. Throughout the province of Nova Scotia organizations have been formed-nonpolitical organizations, religious societies, veterans' bodies, and the like-which meet all over the province weekly. Their purpose is to press upon the government the necessity of improving the transportation facilities between the mainland and Cape Breton island, which would also do much to relieve the unemployment problem. The people down there appreciate the fact-and I think it is not generally appreciated throughout Canada- that one-third of Canada's basic steel, and perhaps half of all the coal produced in Canada, is produced on the island of Cape Breton. Yet these products have to be dragged out from Cape Breton island by the present outmoded transportation facilities. I know the minister realizes that, but apparently he is tangled up with incompetent engineers or with the treasury branch.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps both.


Clarence Gillis: Maybe both. I am continually receiving letters and resolutions asking what the government is going to do about this bridge across the strait of Canso. I do not bother the minister any more with them, because I feel sorry for him. I feel that he would have built it long ago, if left to himself, if only to stop me and the hon. member for Davenport from talking. The letters I get are to this effect: What is the government doing about it? Is it trying to fool us? They have been making borings for a long time, and they know how deep the water is; they have had several engineers' reports. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I received a return on this subject that would fill this desk; yet in spite of all the information the government has, it appointed an engineering commission to make further investigations. The letters I receive go on to ask: Why is the government continuing to spend half a million dollars on improving present facilities if it is really in earnest about building this bridge? They feel that the government does not intend to build it, or that something is wrong somewhere.
Another point they make is this: It is strange that the minister expects to get a report from his engineers only after the house closes. Why could not this engineering commission make a report now, with the information already available, information which has been gathered over the years? I personally think that the engineers could have come to a conclusion before the end of July. Anyway I have promised myself that towards the end of

Supply-Transport
July I shall come to Ottawa and I would like to meet the minister at that time and those who are going to finalize the engineering report; I am sufficiently interested in the matter to do that. I suggest to the minister that if he hustles up that report it will relieve the minds of the people of Nova Scotia; for they are beginning to mistrust the intentions of the government in spending money on the survey of a project which apparently they have no intention of going ahead with, because at the same time they are spending a large amount of money to improve the existing transportation facilities.
We were discussing here this morning an item of $3,500,000 for a car ferry for Prince Edward Island. Anyone who has travelled in the United States knows that if the Americans were in this country they would have had a tunnel between those islands long ago. It is in our own interest to do that. But it is a dead horse in this house so far as I am concerned. While I have a great deal of confidence in the minister himself, I am beginning to look behind the scenes. I think he is being pulled hither and yon. I would ask him before this house closes to make some statement on the building of a bridge across the strait of Canso, so that I can go home and reassure the people of Nova Scotia that everybody is not dealing dishonestly with them but that there is some evidence of going ahead with this very necessary national improvement. And it is a national improvement, because it would affect not only Cape Breton but everything clean through from Cape Breton to Moncton. The transportation facilities on the C N.R. are good from Montreal to Moncton, but not so good from Moncton to Sydney. They need overhauling. I trust that the minister will make a statement before the house closes that will be sufficiently definite for me to be able to say something definite to the people back home.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can-


Mr. ISNOR:: Before the minister replies, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add my voice in support of the representations made by the last two hon. members in regard to the Canso strait project. I do not propose to speak at any length, because the minister is going to reply and he is quite familiar with the subject which has been placed before the committee by the hon member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Davenport on more than one occasion, as well as by other hon. members from the maritimes.
I would ask the minister whether he is familiar with the brief presented by the transportation commission of the maritime board
5849-318i
of trade with regard to the proposed bridge or causeway, and if so, to deal with the various points outlined in that brief. I would also ask him whether he has ever read the representations made before the rehabilitation committee of this house about three or four years ago by the then premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. A. S. MacMillan. The brief goes into the matter fully and deals with the report prepared and presented by Mr. D. W. McLachlan, of the Canadian National Railways, whom we all recognize as an authority and a man of vast experience. I would ask the minister to deal with the figures presented by Mr. McLachlan, and not to stop at the boring surveys which are now under way.
I do not always agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I did not agree with him yesterday, when I think he was entirely out of his field; but today he is dealing with something of which he has an intimate knowledge, and something which is directly connected with that part of the country. We are all interested in the development of Cape Breton and the mainland, as well as the rest of Canada. We want to see steps taken which will bring about a greater opportunity in Cape Breton for the development of the coal and steel industries. It is a well known fact that the shipment of coal is handicapped because of the lack of proper facilities. That has all been set out. The realignment of the Canadian National Railway tracks to provide necessary and suitable "haulage is all set out in the report to which I refer. The costs are given, the distance and the type of bridge are mentioned. The whole thing should be carefully studied and a statement made by the minister. Perhaps he is not in a position to do it today, but it should be done at some time.
The report refers to the amount of coal which was shipped in the various years, particularly in 1937 and thereafter. It is with that thought in mind, the shipment of greater quantities of coal to the mainland and in turn to central Canada to increase the prosperity of the coal fields of Cape Breton, that I join with other hon. members in urging the minister to give greater consideration to this matter and to tell us what he is willing or anxious to do to help the economy of that section of our country.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to add my voice to what has been said by the hon. member for Davenport, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the senior member for Halifax. There is one undertaking on which the 650,000 people of Nova Scotia speak with
Supply-Transport

one voice, namely the construction of this bridge. There is a feeling throughout Nova Scotia, and I have it too, that there has been unnecessary procrastination on the part of those in authority at Ottawa. The senior member for Halifax has just said that Mr. A. S. MacMillan, who was the premier of Nova Scotia at the time, returned from Ottawa before the last election and announced that he had had a commitment from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that the bridge would be built. Why it takes so long to get the information, as pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I do not know. Surveys have been going on for many years. Surveys have been made within the last two years. Engineers have been appointed to review the plans. Why they cannot accept the figures and bring down their report, even if it is only a progress report, and let us know what their views are, I do not know. I should like to know why it is put off continually and why there is so much procrastination. The people of Nova Scotia do not understand it.
I was minister of highways in Nova Scotia for over eight years. When I first became minister there was inadequate ferry service for highway traffic. We had wharves and ferry boats built. The service was improved; but it appeared to me every time I went to Cape' Breton that it was a logical and necessary undertaking to have a bridge or causeway over the strait of Canso. The distance is short, and the foundations are good. I do not understand why there is so much delay. Anyway, I want to repeat that the people of Nova Scotia demand this and require it. In that respect they speak with one voice. I am glad to join with other hon. members who have expressed their views today.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can make as accurate a statement on Canso now as I could even if I acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that further information be obtained before the house rises. The position is simply this. In July of last year I made a statement in the house outlining the position at that time. I explained the various projects under consideration: a causeway, a bridge, improved facilities and the realignment of the line. I went into it at great length. As I then said, it was a report which was prepared by the engineer, who had already given careful consideration to the brief of the maritime board of trade, to which the senior member for Halifax referred, as well as the presentation made by the former premier of Nova Scotia. Following the decision reached by the officers of the department, an item was

placed in the estimates. However, following that, the premier of Nova Scotia and a delegation from that province waited upon the then minister of reconstruction and supply and myself. This matter was fully discussed. I am not free to state here what was said at that time, but there was an engineer with the group that came up, the premier himself, and one other individual. Certain aspects of the scheme were put forward, and we promised to give it further consideration.
Later the proposal was made that we set up a board of engineers to review the reports and special surveys previously made by the Department of Transport. That committee has been appointed. It consists of three engineers, Professor D. S. Ellis, Dr. A. Surveyer and Dr. P. L. Pratley. These men have gone to the scene, have consulted with our officers and are studying whether or not it is practicable from the several standpoints to construct a bridge capable of accommodating a singletrack railway and highway traffic, to construct a causeway for a railway and highway traffic, to construct a tunnel for highway and railway traffic, and the provision of improved railway facilities and ferry service. That board was appointed only in January of this year. The factthat it will not report until July has no significance. I can assure my hon. friend that if he comes up here after they have reported I shall certainly be delighted to see him, as I am at any time.
There seems to be some apprehension about the amount of money that was spent last year. While $250,000 was voted, only $20,000 has been spent. That amount was expended because the borings were not completed and it was not possible to spend a greater sum. As mentioned in the statement made last year, a decision was reached to improve the facilities, and that would cost $4,500,000. This amount is placed in the estimates in order to provide for the beginning of the work. The facilities are not good. They will have to be improved in any event, pending the finding of the board, and if it is decided that a scheme other than this should be proceeded with, the money simply will not be spent. So that until such time as the board of engineers has reported, I am afraid I am not able to add anything to what I have already said.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should like to bring one other point to the minister's attention. Taking into consideration the $5 million estimated as the cost of the ferry, and the twenty per cent saving which Mr. Fairweather estimated would be made by the realignment of the tracks-

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The cost of the ferry is about 81,500,000, not $5 million.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Taking the cost of the ferry at $1,500,000, and against that the saving which would be effected if the tracks were realigned, what is the minister's long-range view as to the saving that would be made by the Canadian National Railways? It is shown in Mr. Fairweather's report that whereas the largest type of locomotives from Truro to Moncton can take a haul of 1,930 tons, from Moncton to Edmundston they are capable of hauling 3,500 tons; or, to state it in the equivalent of cars, from Sydney to Port Tupper, 21 cars; from Mulgrave to Stellarton, 17; from Truro, Nova Scotia, to Moncton, 26; and from Moncton to Edmundston, 45. They are able to haul about twice as many cars from Moncton to Edmundston as they can over the line of track the realignment of which is being considered. The fact that the realignment was not done, no doubt added to the C.N.R. deficit of last year. And when you remember that 78-2 per cent of the revenue came from freight, I suggest that it is an important item and we should consider whether it is feasible and good business to carry out the project that is suggested.
It is roughly estimated by Mr. Fairweather, in his evidence before a parliamentary committee, that an improved railway from Sydney to Moncton would result in a twenty per cent reduction in the cost of moving freight over that line, and that twenty per cent would naturally be reflected in the price of coal and steel shipped to central Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the saving in railway operations would be $300,000.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: For what period?


Lionel Chevrier: Per annum.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: And against that you pay the interest tied up in the $1,500,000, operation costs, and so on. Can we get a picture of the whole thing so that we may see it from the sound business point of view?


Percy Chapman Black: Are special efforts being made under the minister's direction to improve the grades and alignment of the road from Moncton to Sydney? Are steps being taken in this direction by the Canadian National? Can the minister say what is practicable in the circumstances, what the cost will be, and how soon the work will be undertaken?


Lionel Chevrier: The engineer in the department went into the question fully. The hon. member no doubt remembers that evidence was given in the committee before I
made the statement referred to a moment ago, and the Canadian National Railways have come to the conclusion that the capital cost would be such that they could not approve
its being done.


Percy Chapman Black: If the proposal cannot be carried out in its entirety so as to bring the whole road up to the highest state of perfection, can the minister say whether those sections where the greatest difficulty is encountered now could be improved and brought up to a satisfactory standard?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: One word in reference to the strait of Canso. The hon. member for Cumberland said that Nova Scotia would speak with one voice on anything that made for improved conditions at the strait of Canso, and I add that Prince Edward Island would be happy indeed to see the construction of either a bridge or a causeway, or whatever the engineers decide should be undertaken, to take care of traffic at that point. We produce foodstuffs for which we could find a home market in Sydney. According to statistics-the hon. member for Cape Breton South will correct me if I am wrong-over $50,000,000 a year is paid out in wages there alone, and that is not the only amount that is distributed in wages. If a bridge or causeway were erected, farmers in Prince Edward Island would benefit because they could take their trucks direct into Sydney, where they would find an excellent market. I can assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South that Prince Edward Island would take the same view as that expressed by the hon. member for Cumberland, We are prepared to support anything that may be undertaken for the benefit of the three maritime provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rest of us, too.


Clarence Gillis: So what is holding it up?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: One more question. I have never been able to get figures in connection with freight originating in the maritimes and going to central Canada, or from the Atlantic to the central region. How.does the minister arrive at the $300,000 that was mentioned a moment ago?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give the answer; I do not know.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You have experts.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I want to put on the record the statement that the minister is unable to provide that information.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I have said.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-
508. Air transport board-salaries and office expenses, $154,297.
Percy Chapman Black: These items have been going through so fast that I have not had a chance to ask the question I want to ask now. Can the minister make a statement as to subventions for maritime freight rates? Is enough provided to look after the twenty per cent increase in freight rates?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no.


Percy Chapman Black: That will be supplementary?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the minister give an assurance that the twenty per cent over-all will be made available under the Duncan commission's freight rates recommendations?


Lionel Chevrier: It is statutory. It has to be done.


Clarence Gillis: I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce, shortly after the freight rates were increased, Whether the subventions as applied to the movement of maritime coal would be increased to absorb the freight rate increase, and his answer was definitely, yes. It is merely a matter of stepping them up.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Air service-[DOT]
508. Air transport board-salaries and office expenses, $154,297.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item I should like to ask the minister a question which no doubt he expects me to ask. I promise him I have no intention of repeating the speech-


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend promise it is the same question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but I hope I get a different and better answer. My question has to do with government policy in relation to a transpacific air service. As the minister knows, in the past the stated policy of the government has been quite clear, namely that this service will be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines. Rumours that have appeared in the press, and the indefiniteness of ministerial answers have led me to wonder whether a

change, which I would deplore, is in prospect. Can the minister now state what is the present government policy with respect to the operation of a transpacific air service, particularly the service set out in the Canada-Australia agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I cannot enlighten the hon. member any more than I did the last time he asked the question. I have to repeat what I said then, namely, that the policy of the government has not been altered, and that if and when it is changed I shall make a statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: About all I can say in reply to that is that it is just about the same amount of enlightenment as the minister gave previously, which is none. I hope there will be no change in government policy, but the kind of answers being given seem to suggest that one is in prospect; and it is, I fear, the sort of change I deplore and protest.


Mr. BRYCE:: There is a matter I should like to bring before the minister under this item. I believe this is the correct item on which to do so ; if not I shall wait until later. I have had some correspondence with the Rivercrest community club; and for the information of the minister I may tell him this represents a new settlement of veterans' homes in my constituency. They are all in West St. Paul, and in this fully modern residential district there are fifty-eight veterans' homes. The whole district lies between the highway and the Red river. They are disturbed because an application has been made to the air transport board for a licence to operate an aircraft establishment, which would mean that planes would take off from and land on adjacent property. Perhaps I would save the time of the committee by quoting from the last letter I received, in which they say:
This not only constitutes a public nuisance and a hazard but decreases our property values also, and we are unanimously opposed to such an establishment in our neighbourhood. We petitioned against this undertaking to the municipal council, who passed a by-law prohibiting such installations within certain areas of the municipality and advised the Department of Transport of their action, requesting them at the same time to refuse to issue a licence. The Department of Transport here have referred the whole matter to Ottawa for decision, and we would like to have you intervene on our behalf if you would be kind enough to do so.
We are all greatly concerned over the matter, and several of our members have signified their intention of giving up their homes and moving elsewhere if the proposed aerodrome becomes a reality. We are building up a nice community here and rvould hate to see it spoiled.

Supply-T ransport
I do not think I can add very much to this. The veterans who have set up this modern residential district do not want an aerodrome next door if they can possibly avoid it. I appeal to the minister to have the air transport board give this matter every consideration.
I have to leave now for a meeting of the veterans affairs committee; if the minister is not able to give an answer at the moment, perhaps he could give one later.


Lionel Chevrier: All I can tell the hon. member now is that I am informed that if any such application has been made it is not to the knowledge of the board or the officers of the department. When such matters come before the board, licences are considered if in the public interest; and from the letter my hon. friend has quoted these representations unquestionably would be taken into consideration either by the board, if the letter should come before it, or the director of air services.
I can assure the hon. gentleman now that these representations will be brought to their attention.


William Scottie Bryce: Thank you very much. According to this letter the Winnipeg office has referred the whole matter to Ottawa; therefore it will probably come before the officials here.


Mr. SKEY:: I should like to bring the discussion back to the Pacific air routes. Am I to understand that no charter has been issued either to T.C.A. or any other applicant for the operation of Pacific air routes from Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is that no licence has been granted for transpacific services, either to T.C.A. or to any other carrier. In case I should be misunderstood, I should say a licence has been granted to an Australian company to operate a service from Australia to Canada, as the hon. gentleman knows.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: But no Canadian company has yet received a reciprocal privilege?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: For a moment I should like to support the view that Canada should inaugurate Pacific flights from Canada, and should grant a Canada charter to a company to fly to the Pacific islands, Australia and New Zealand. In these times I think it imperative that we should open up such routes as these, even though in the beginning they may be a bit uneconomical to operate. I would urge that the government give every consideration to any application for such a charter, or to giving T.C.A. a charter to operate over those routes. I spoke on this matter in 1946, when
I was strongly of the opinion that we should draw the chains of empire closer together, and that Canada could perform a real service in opening up these routes to our sister commonwealths in the south Pacific.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
510.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $569,523.
Mr. SINNOTT:: There are several aeroplanes landing along the Red river under charters which permit them to operate ^ to various points in the northeastern portion of my constituency. They are rendering good service; but in landing on the Red river with their pontoons they cause considerable damage to the banks, which has led to several cave-ins, especially in the vicinity of the East Kildonan canoe club. I would ask the minister to see what can be done to keep these banks from falling in.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-Airways and airports-
511.	Construction and improvements, including radio facilities; and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $452,000-capital, $11,138,309.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: What radio installations are being made at airports controlled by the department, and where?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a long list of them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I do not wish to delay the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will say in which airport he is interested, I can give him the expenditures in respect of that one.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It would serve my purposes if the minister or his office would supply me with the information privately.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you very much.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have one further observation to make which I believe is of considerable importance. I wish to congratulate the minister's department upon having the foresight to employ Doctor Norman W. McLeod, whose contribution in runway construction has been unique. Doctor McLeod is a Canadian, and a graduate of Canadian universities. His contribution has been of a novel and excellent type, so much so that he was given an international award for his work, to which I shall refer briefly.
Supply-Transport

I believe Doctor McLeod is in the department on a part-time retainer basis; but his particular contribution is to bring to the technique of runway construction a new method of analysis of the undersoil, and a method of correlating the undersoil with the wheel loading which can be used on particular runways. His method can be applied not only to runway construction, but to any type of highway construction. When the results obtained by his method were compared with those of the United States corps of army engineers it was found that in some instances by his method it is necessary to use only about half or less than half the thickness of concrete in order to meet the safety factors required in runway construction.
I have taken these few minutes of the committee's time to congratulate the department upon having at its call such an excellent Canadian scientist who has made a real contribution to the development not only of our airways but of our highways as well.
Could the minister or his officials prepare a brief memorandum on this technique which could be passed on to all provincial departments and municipalities concerned with road building? This method represents a substantial saving to Canadian taxpayers. The application of his formula means a tremendous saving in public money in all fields of highway and air force runway construction.


Lionel Chevrier: Doctor McLeod has already prepared a report in the form of a book which deals with the very work to which the hon. member has referred, including preparation of the soil, and the like. We are making use of that book. While it is not a public document, it is in our possession, and if Doctor McLeod has no objection it could be circulated to the provincial governments.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I feel strongly it is the duty of the minister's department to see that this report has the widest possible circulation among those who are interested in construction work.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Before going to a special committee I should like to bring to the attention of the minister certain facts in connection with the airport at Castlegar in my constituency. It is now used principally by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The airport is being maintained as a result of co-operation between the provincial government and the local citizens, and is providing excellent facilities.
The provincial government leased to the community a considerable area of land formerly owned by the Doukhobors. The local people have raised money and have done coasiderable work, so that they now have an 
airport fairly well advanced, and with possibilities for development into an excellent airport. This service is required in that part of the interior of British Columbia. In addition we have a number of smaller airports for the landing of smaller aircraft, which are coming into that district in increasing numbers, and for emergency landings. These airports have been neglected in recent years.
In view of the importance of the airport at Castlegar and the necessity for its development, I think it is most unfair that the development should rest with the local citizens. This airport serves a need in the community, and gives facilities for emergency landings. What is the government's policy with respect to these airports, and the giving of federal assistance for their development?


Lionel Chevrier: The policy is to help the airports on request. This airport is not under the jurisdiction of the department. It is operated and maintained by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. If application is made to the air transport board it will be dealt with in the same manner as other applications are handled.


Mr. PEARKES:: Has the department
recently taken over from the R.C.A.F. the airport at. Patricia Bay?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. We have taken it over for their operation, and for ourselves as well, and it is for their future use.


George Randolph Pearkes: What about the administration of the airport?


Lionel Chevrier: It is our responsibility.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I congratulate the minister upon having taken over such an excellent airport. For some time adjustments with neighbouring farmers in connection with the extension of runways and the establishment of guide poles have been somewhat up in the air. Now that the Department of Transport has taken over, can final settlement be speeded up? These farmers have been waiting for over twelve months for their adjustments. I am sure the minister's department knows the people to whom I refer. I would ask that since the department has now taken over, final settlement be made.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure the hon. member that, having taken over, we will speed up adjustments as quickly as possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have every confidence in the minister.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to ask a general question about this group of items. I shall base my question on item 511, but I would point out that in

Supply-Transport
the group we have expenditures amounting to about $28,000,000. I should like to make this general observation: These are expenditures about which the ordinary layman can know very little. We are in the hands of the engineers, and we cannot expect the engineers to be particularly interested in money matters. I believe their whole instinct-and a very proper one indeed-is to try to carry their side of the matter as far as they can. Here we have expenditures which I suppose, according to judgment exercised, might vary between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000; they might run up to $40,000,000 or $50,000,000, according to the application of, first, construction, and second, the newest type of scientific investigation.
Obviously the minister cannot exercise complete and detailed judgment-and for two reasons: First, I believe it can be said he is not a technical man and, second, he is busy with other affairs. I should like to ask two questions. First of all, what means does the minister use to satisfy himself as to how far we should go? I admit that is a very difficult question, because in one way these new scientific inventions are useful and necessary, but in another way they are like delightful toys that people can play with ad lib. My second question is this: What is the relationship in matters of expenditure between the minister's department. as it applies to air transportation, and the Department of National Defence? I take it that scientific expenditures in respect of radio and the like are made under the air branch.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member asks what means are adopted to ascertain whether these expenditures are controlled. They are controlled in two ways: first, by the close watch which the treasury board keeps on all these items, and then by the air transport board to which application is made for additional services. In so far as the relationship between Defence and this department is concerned, anything of a civil nature is controlled entirely by the air division of transport. Some of the airports being abandoned by the Department of National Defence are taken over by us. I believe we took over last year some seventeen airports belonging to national defence and there is another item which we can discuss when we get to it if the hon. gentleman wishes.


Mr. McMASTER:: Will part of this expenditure be made at Malton airport?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


William Alexander McMaster: Are Trans-Canada Air Lines charged for the use of Malton and other airports?


Lionel Chevrier: They pay landing fees and rental for hangars.


William Alexander McMaster: Where would that appear? Would that be in your budget?


Lionel Chevrier: It goes into consolidated revenue fund.


William Alexander McMaster: Approximately what are they paying for everything?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it is about $1,250,000.


William Alexander McMaster: That is in connection with all airports?


Lionel Chevrier: That is for all air services.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there an operating statement for Malton airport to show what the receipts and disbursements are?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister give those figures?


Lionel Chevrier: A monthly report is received in connection with Malton airport showing the revenue and the expenditures. It is not a public document; it is for the information of the officers. I can see no objection, however, to getting the figures for the hon. gentleman if he wants them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to press for figures which in themselves might not be significant, but it seems to me that it would be a matter of relevancy and of some importance to know in a general way what those reports showed, what revenue was produced and what were the carrying charges. I will not hold up the matter now. Perhaps the minister can give us the information later.


William Alexander McMaster: I notice in the breakdown given on page 279 an item of $1,817,000 for radio services. Can the minister give us some idea of how and where that is spent?


Lionel Chevrier: I was asked that question a moment ago, when I said there is a long list of items for radio services, which could be described pretty much as follows: 100 radio range stations, 15 fan markers, 3 frequency modulation relay stations, 11 instrument approach systems, and other installations with reference to radio in various airports. The list comprises some four or five pages. I can give the details if the hon. member wishes.


William Alexander McMaster: I do not think I want all the details. Will any of this money be spent at Malton? I was just wondering where it is spent and why.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: There is no provision for radio construction at Malton, but there is for the installation of an instrument landing system, which is quite costly. Of the amount referred to in the estimates, $1,817,350 is being provided for radio services, with another $811,000 for the acquisition of radio equipment for various airports.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am interested in the point which has been pursued by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for High Park. I think the facts that they brought out are pertinent to the whole question of our air services. If I did not misunderstand them, they were getting at the fact that part of the cost of operating Trans-Canada Air Lines is hidden in these items covering airport and radio beam services. I think that is perfectly true. I should like to point out to them-and I think they will suspect what is coming-that the same thing applies to the privately-owned air lines. A while ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that it was only recently that private air lines such as the Canadian Pacific have been showing a profit. In order to be consistent, my hon. friends will have to admit that Canadian Pacific Air Lines show a profit only because many of the services necessary to the operation of their planes are paid for out of the public treasury.


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian Pacific are operating their air services at a loss.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to follow what the hon. member of Muskoka-Ontario did last night, but that is not what your colleague told us not	long ago. He said	thatthey had got out of	the red	and	were	intothe black. Whether they are operating at a loss or a profit, the sums of money that we are voting right now are evidence that we are able to maintain air services in this country, whether privately or publicly owned, only because huge amounts of money are spent by the government in a capital way and on the operating of air services. I agree that this should be done, but	because	this	is in	thenature of a public	service	and	a public
monopoly, I have supported down through the years the extent to which the government has gone in for the public ownership and operation of air lines. I hope to see that policy continued, and not weakened or vitiated in any way by any backward step on the part of the government.


John Lambert Gibson: What is the present status of the Tofino airport? We spent about $5,000,000 there during the war and I am curious to know what the department is going to do with it.
[Mr. McMaster.J


Lionel Chevrier: It is maintained by the Department of Transport.


John Lambert Gibson: The
department is taking care of its upkeep?


Lionel Chevrier: And operation and
maintenance.


Mr. IRVINE:: What is the situation with respect to the airstrip at Dawson Creek? The minister may not have the information at his fingers' ends, but I brought this to his attention some time ago. I do not even know at the moment under whose jurisdiction it comes, but I do know that it is badly in need of repairs, and I should like to know what the situation is.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that we have made a survey of the airport and airfield at Dawson Creek, and while no decision has yet been reached, it is a difficult operation and one that would be quite expensive to maintain. I would not like to go further at the moment.
( Translation):


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Transport a few questions in connection with item 511. In view of the stupendous development that has taken place in the northwestern part of the province of Quebec, it becomes important to set up an air line in that region. The minister has received numerous requests from different organizations of Val d'Or and Rouyn asking for the construction of airports. Our region has now a population of more than 100,000. Therefore it is essential that we give those people the opportunity of travelling a little more easily than they do now. By railway, the trip from Val d'Or to Montreal takes from 16 to 18 hours. So it is urgent to set up an air line.
Could the minister tell us whether he has received any petitions from Val d'Or or Rouyn with reference to the building of an airport at either place? What action has he taken in the matter? Do these credits provide for the building of an airport at the earliest opportunity?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I may say that there has been no request for the building of an airport at Rouyn or Val d'Or, but there was one for the setting up of an air line, which is not quite the same thing. When the application is submitted to us formally-there are more than one, I am told-it will be acted upon in the regular way by the air transport board.

Supply-Transport


David Réal Caouette: Were those applications for an air line charter filed by individuals or by companies.


Lionel Chevrier: Companies.


David Réal Caouette: Privately owned companies?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
(Text):


Mr. JACKMAN:: I think the minister
should make a general statement on the construction of airfields. I do not want him to misunderstand me; I am not necessarily against them; in fact I am very much for them. But I think the committee is entitled to a statement in regard to the substantial expenditures which are being made, particularly in view of the fact, as has just been said, that Canadian Pacific Air Lines is losing money, and we also know that Trans-Canada Air Lines lost money last year, and we do not know just what the prospects are. As my colleague the member for Muskoka-Ontario said a short while ago, with most of the technical details in the hands of engineers, we may be doing things which are not a practical economic necessity. It is from this point of view that I would ask the minister to make a statement justifying these increases in expenditure. For example, item 511 shows that we appropriated last year $4,900,000, in round figures, and this year we are appropriating $11,138,000, an increase of approximately $6,200,000. We find in subsequent estimates that only a small portion of the total amount voted last year was used. I would like to know, first, why the amount voted last year was not used, and second, why the estimates this year exceed the total used and unused portions voted last year. In view of the fact that air lines in this country are operating at a loss, why are we making substantial appropriations to increase the facilities for something which does not justify itself economically?


Lionel Chevrier: The operation of these airports is of course being done at a loss. The house is familiar with the operations of T.C.A. It was operated at a profit for some years, but in the last two years there has been a deficit. That is the position not only in this country but in Great Britain and the United States; and in the United States the loss is proportionately greater than it is in Canada. The object of the department is to see that these airports are maintained in a condition that is safe for landing aircraft. What we do is to make the repairs, improvements and capital expenditures which are necessary in order to provide for the safety of the travelling public.
The item we are now discussing contains a revote of $3,109,500. The appropriation provides for the construction and improvement of airports, the construction and improvement of aerodromes and emergency landing fields to meet modem aviation requirements. It also provides for the installation of high intensity lighting, the extension of runways, boundary and approach lighting, the establishment and extension of radio facilities for the safe operation of airways in Canada and Newfoundland. The department has been fortunate in that many of the airports which were taken over were built during the war. If they had had to be built in peacetime the expenditure would have been not $11 million or more, but twice or perhaps three or four times as much. What we are doing now is to maintain and operate them for the safety of air navigation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Where is the end of these large expenditures, as well as of current maintenance expenditures, in this particular field? Is it the view of the government that these air services will ever justify themselves from a dollar-and-cents point of view? If the minister replies in the negative, that in the foreseeable future the revenues from these air services will not equal the expenditures, should not these airports and facilities be looked upon as a matter of national defence and not as something having to do with civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the day will come when these services will pay for themselves. But, as my hon. friend has intimated, I cannot say that that is possible in the near future.


Mr. FLEMING:: Substantial reconstruction is under way at Malton airport. What amount does this item provide for the reconstruction of buildings and for control and other improvements of the field at Malton? Is anything provided here for the Toronto island airport? Is any extension contemplated by the department which will increase the usefulness of the island airport, or is it simply to be used in the future as it has up to the present, largely for small planes and trainers? Are any changes contemplated at the Uplands airport? I understand that since the new planes were introduced by Trans-Canada Air Lines they are not using the Uplands airport. Apparently the field at Uplands is not large enough for the new planes that are in service; they are operating directly between Montreal and Toronto, but not on the triangular service via Uplands. Can the minister tell us something about that, and indicate whether any changes are provided for Uplands under this item?


Lionel Chevrier: There is provision for extending the runways at the Malton airport.
Supply-Transport

As my hon. friend knows, a substantial sum is being expended for renovation of the administration building.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How much?
Mr. CH'EVRIER: I will get the figure in a minute. We are not spending any money on the island airport. It is under the jurisdiction of the Toronto harbour commissioners. At Uplands, or the Ottawa airport, we do not propose to make the runways large enough to accommodate the new T.C.A. North Stars. We feel that that expenditure would not be justified at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give the expenditures at Malton under this item?


Lionel Chevrier: They are provided in another item. The amount for the completion of the terminal building, facilities and administration building at Malton is $525,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When is it expected to be completed?


Lionel Chevrier: When I saw it two weeks ago it was progressing fairly well. I would think that by the end of August or early September it would be completed.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Who is responsible for making requests for improvements at the various airports? They must come from somebody. When requests do come in, on what basis is it decided whether the expenditure should be made or not?


Lionel Chevrier: The demand for improvements is made by the district inspector, and they are given consideration by the director of air services, who decides in the affirmative or in the negative in accordance with the importance of the airport, the amount of traffic, and the economic need.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Do the inspectors get their information or requests from the various air lines such as the T.C A., the C.P.A., the United States lines, and so on, which are using these fields?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend has Malton in mind, the inspector is in Toronto. Toronto is the headquarters of the central division. He would be guided by the amount of traffic and also by the representations that were made to him by the various air lines using the port.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The air lines are the one who really make the request. We have been talking about operations. Is there a standard schedule of charges for the various air lines? What are these charges? Are they the same in Canada as they are in the United

States for similar airports, and do all the air lines pay the same charges? What is the total revenue that comes in by way of charges? I should like to know how the charges compare.


William Ross Macdonald: Would it be better to let these questions stand until we reach the item?


Lionel Chevrier: The discussion has been very general on this item. We have been going on to other items. I shall try to get the information for my hon. friend.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I want to know what the charges are and whether they should be higher or lower. The government does not own railway stations; the railways have to put them up themselves. It seems to me that the air lines which are operating should pay an economic rent for the stations they use.


Lionel Chevrier: The charges that my hon. friend inquired about are uniform throughout the country. They are not necessarily the same in this country as they are in the United States. They are based on the economic service.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are our charges lower or higher than the charges of comparable airports in the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that we cannot compare the charges in this country with those of the United States, because they are not based on the same service. The rates and the charges are not established on the same basis.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There are two air lines operating from Toronto to New York. One is operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines and the other by a United States air line. Do these lines pay the same charges at Malton near Toronto as they pay in New York when they land there? Is there a difference, and if so, why? Why should we charge less than they do, if we do?


Lionel Chevrier: The United States has no standard basis for the establishment of these charges. They vary in each state, and sometimes at each airport. That is why it is difficult to compare them. In some instances ours are higher and in others they are lower, but in every instance there is uniformity throughout the country.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Do we pay the same landing charges at LaGuardia field in New York as the United States air lines do? Do the United States air lines pay the same charges at Malton as Trans-Canada Air Lines pay?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no discrimination at any airport as to the amount of the charges.

Supply-Transport


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does Trans-Ganada pay the same charges in New York as the United States air lines pay?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here we are contemplating an expenditure of about $30,000,000. I ask the minister this question. Are we just going along doing this, that and the other thing, which we think is important, partly for civil aviation and partly for military aviation? Is there any plan of any kind in our minds? In the first place, is there any reason why we should carry commercial passengers at away below cost? I assume wre are doing that. If I am wrong, the minister will correct me; if I am right, why are we doing it? What basis is there for arriving at this huge expenditure? Here are millions of dollars to be spent on airports. I imagine it is fully justified, but I do not know. There may be justification purely from the national defence point of view, but I think the minister should give us a statement indicating some underlying principles. We are engaged here in the completely blind business of voting millions of dollars in the absence of any principle on which the money is being spent, and in particular-I come back to this-without knowing whether those who are using the air purely as a means of transport, without any particular reason, are paying their way. In charter services, such as the bush lines, the lines up in Muskoka, and the tourist resorts, people must pay their own way. They do not get government assistance, and I do not think they should; but I suggest that people using the air for ordinary travel should not get government assistance either.
I come back to the first question. Must there not be in the government's mind some basis whereon they determine whether they shall spend ten, twenty, thirty or forty millions, and must there not be in their mind also some part of that amount which is necessary for the purpose of national defence and which would have to be spent anyway? Can we be given that figure? Can we, in other words, be put in a position to exercise some kind of judgment? At the moment all we can do is look at the amount of money we are spending, without knowing the principle on which it is spent.


Lionel Chevrier: The request is a legitimate one, and I think the best I can do is to prepare a statement, which I will bring in as quickly as possible, outlining the reasons and the basis for the expenditure.


William Ross Macdonald: Before any other hon. member speaks, may I say to the committee
that I try to see that discussion comes from every quarter of the chamber and is not confined to any particular party or group. With that object in mind, it is perhaps necessary for me to call on an hon. member who has stood up only once, when some other hon. member may have stood up four or five times in an effort to get the floor. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has the floor now.


John Lambert Gibson: I am curious to know whether the department has been approached by any of the air lines operating in Canada, in the same manner as the steamship lines have approached him, and approached him so successfully. If we give them $2,000,000 in the form of a subsidy to serve people in the outlying areas, has his department considered the granting of subsidies to bush air lines? Coming to the Post Office Department, one can establish an excellent case for the provision of air-mail service. The people in some parts of my riding receive mail every ten or twelve days, and it is conceded down here that that is not good enough, but they say that they are not the department of government which has the function of subsidizing air services. The time is coming when the departments of transport and reconstruction will have to face the problem of providing assistance or better facilities for the people who live on the frontiers. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario suggested that the government should not give assistance. I hope I do not misunderstand him. His riding and mine are similar in certain respects. I suggest that if Canada is to be developed, the people who live in the cities, enjoying all the facilities that are provided, must see to it that the people who live on the frontiers and who are producing the natural wealth of the country are also provided with these facilities. I should be glad to assist the minister with my humble vote if he ever came here with provision for assisting the bush-flying organizations. I do not know whether Canadian Pacific Air Lines on the main routes or Trans-Canada need great assistance, apart from what they get now in the provision of first class airports; but these airports, apart from their military value, strike me as being much the same as government docks that we provide. They are for the service of all the people. Heaven knows when any of us will have to use the lines for very urgent reasons. There must be some way in which the department can be of assistance to the people in the outlying districts. I am all for it.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the day will come when we shall have to consider the
Supply-Transport

question of subsidies to air lines and air carriers. Thus far we have not given it consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except indirectly.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has taken the words out of my mouth. We have done so indirectly by aiding in the construction of airports and aerodromes, and paying for their operation and maintenance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And radio beam services.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni made an excellent socialist speech a moment ago.


John Lambert Gibson: I am
broadminded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He comes from British Columbia.


Clarence Gillis: I do not need to repeat what he said. However, I wish to ask a question. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and others have criticized these expenditures. They wish to know whether they have justified or will justify themselves. I believe they have done so already. In Trans-Canada Air Lines the people of Canada have something to be proud of.


John Lambert Gibson: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: I think that if we ever arrive at the point at which the hon. member is aiming, where we shall have a fair base to work from and supervise service in the air, there will have to be a consolidation of all under one government department. In my opinion this form of travel, so far as the public is concerned, will have to be closely supervised, and I do not think there is anyone in the country in a position to do that job except the government of Canada, which is responsible to the people. In my opinion the bush lines and C.P.A. should be under T.C.A. There is no comparison between the services, and if the job is to be done properly the government now is providing practically all the facilities. The other lines get the benefit of it. The time will come when the whole thing will have to be operated by the government; I have no doubt about that. What I did rise to ask the minister-


William Alexander McMaster: You were going to ask a question.


Clarence Gillis: You do not like what I am saying, do you?


Gordon Graydon: He didn't say that.
Maybe you would like him to.


William Alexander McMaster: You are willing that they should spend all the money.


Clarence Gillis: If you have been reading the newspapers and watching the trend of events in the country within the last few months you will come to that conclusion too. You cannot hold the tide back.
I challenge contradiction of the statement a3 to the comparison of the services. The one service in Canada that I am proud of is T.C.A. They are doing an excellent job, and I do not think we are good Canadians if we do not admit it. Every dollar spent on T.C.A. has been money well spent. There are many other things we are spending money on for which we are not getting value.
I will put my question. During the war there was a meteorological service at Sydney airport. It is the main jumping-off point for overseas airways and the main landing point on the way back. That service was discontinued. I understand that they must get weather reports from other places, and that delays them and causes confusion at times. Is there any intention of re-establishing the service there? I think it is absolutely necessary. Further, to what extent is the department encouraging the development of civil aviation at that airport at Sydney? I know a small commercial company was formed there to give service to outlying sections, with small planes, and I believe they were having considerable difficulty in reaching an understanding with the department.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first question would be yes, that the meteorological services at Sydney are now in the process of being re-established. As far as the importance of the airport is concerned, there can be no doubt about that. It is not, of course, the only important one. Dorval is the most important, in the sense that it is a transatlantic airport; but Sydney is being given consideration as an alternate.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is any part of this amount of $11,138,000 for the construction and improvement of airports earmarked for the Clover Valley airport near Saint John? A few years ago the then minister of transport gave the municipality the green light to go ahead and acquire land with a view to the establishment of an airport there. The municipality went ahead and expropriated the land; then the matter was held up. Is the minister able to tell us the present position with respect to that proposed airport, and whether any of this money is to be used to develop it?
I should like also to ask the minister whether any portion of this amount is earmarked for

Supply-Transport
the purpose of developing an airport at or near Fredericton, New Brunswick. Last September and October there was a great deal of discussion in some parts of New Brunswick as to the development of an airport at Fredericton. Will the minister tell us whether any of this money is to be used for that purpose, and whether it is the intention of the government to go ahead with an airport at the capital city of the province?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no provision in these estimates for the construction or extension of an airport at either Saint John or Fredericton. Pennfield Ridge, which is an ex-R.C.A.F. airport thirty or thirty-five miles from Saint John, is being used by and for the people of that city.


Douglas King Hazen: Could the minister develop the point any further at the moment, as to whether anything is being done to provide Fredericton with an airport?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot, at this stage.


Douglas King Hazen: Is the minister able to say whether anything more is being done in connection with the airport at Clover Valley, near Saint John? Is that matter still in mind, or has the government decided to wash out the whole thing?


Lionel Chevrier: No decision has been arrived at as yet.


Douglas King Hazen: In either case?


Lionel Chevrier: I have given the answer with respect to Fredericton; I said I was not able to give any information. I shall do so when the supplementaries are up for discussion.


Gordon Graydon: Then may I ask the minister if there will be any estimates in the supplementaries for the Fredericton airport?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know.


Gordon Graydon: I do not often go to New Brunswick, but it is always a great pleasure when I do. Last fall I was there on some public business, and at that time a great many things were said about an airport for Fredericton. It seemed suspiciously close to by-election time, and I was wondering if perhaps the government promises were to be carried out in the supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not make the promises; I do not know what they were.


Gordon Graydon: I did not find the minister there, but there were plenty of others ready to speak on his behalf.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there no cabinet solidarity in the matter of election promises?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am sorry, but I do not think the minister answered one of my questions. I want to know the charges when one of our planes lands at LaGuardia field, whether they are the same as the charges at Malton. I should like a comparison.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then what is the difference between the cost of landing at LaGuardia field and landing at Malton?


Lionel Chevrier: It would depend on the size of the aircraft and the schedule.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Take the regular trans-Canada plane that goes from here and lands at LaGuardia field. How much do they charge us? Then take the same plane coming back to Malton. How much is it charged there?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to answer the question by sending him a copy of the tariff. It is pretty lengthy and a somewhat complicated document.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Surely the minister can answer that simple question.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the tariff before me.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to know the difference.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to get the tariff and send it to my hon. friend as quickly as possible.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Very well.
Then, following the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, what are the prospects of these airports becoming what might be called economic in their operation? When may we expect expenditures to go down and revenues to come up? Is there any prospect of that? From the information we have obtained today, and in view of this amount of something like 88 million for operating expenses alone, it seems to me that we are voting one of two things. I should like to know if we are voting something that is necessary for Canada, or whether we are voting an expensive luxury. It seems to me that is the way to put it, because I have not been able to make up my mind which it is. We have a great many boards to look after. We are told this [DOT] board does this and that board does that, and the recommendations come in. I do not know how well they are supervised; I do not know how necessary they are, and as yet the minister has not told us how necessary all these things may be.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I promised the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that I would bring in a statement setting out the basis. In reply to the specific question my hon. friend asks, namely, as to the chances of these airports becoming economic in their operation, I stated a moment ago that in the foreseeable future I could not see that they would become so, though eventually I hope they will. All I can say is that the gap is gradually closing.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I want to make a plea to the minister with respect to a specific airstrip, namely the one at Banff. This is a small strip in the centre of one of our national parks, where service is provided by a small operator named Gaetz, who is doing some excellent pioneer work in flying in the Rocky mountains. This service is making great areas of the Rockies available to people who otherwise could not possibly see them, without engaging expensive pack trains and having expensive equipment. Service from this strip is opening up a vast mountain territory which up to the present has been virtually unknown to and unseen by Canadians and Americans alike. I realize that in the national parks there are certain restrictions with respect to flying, which in the main I think are archaic; but if for no other reason than that of dollars and cents, in attracting United States tourists, I should like to see this airstrip provided with shelter, facilities for tethering light aircraft, a hangar, and gasoline service. It is estimated that today in the United States there are about 300,000 owners of private aircraft. Most of these are light machines, and the owners do a considerable amount of touring and travelling. I believe that if this airstrip were made available to owners who wish to take a flying holiday, it would be of great advantage to Canada.
I have flown there myself. I have flown out of Banff and extensively around the Rockies. I believe it can be said there is nowhere else in the world where one would find such magnificent scenery or a territory which might be opened up with such profit as our own Rocky mountain region. This is particularly so in the winter months when, because of the vast snowfields, landing hazards are greatly diminished.
I believe the airport itself could be of great value, not only to open up the vast mountain areas, but as a great revenue producer from Americans who wish to come here with their own aircraft in the summer months.


Lionel Chevrier: We are not doing a great deal in connection with the development of the airstrip at Banff. The same applies to Jasper. The reason is that the landing field is
rMr. Ross (St. Paul's).]
on national parks' property, and the parks administration is opposed in principle to the extensive development of those resort areas. Then, while the country is all right to fly over, it is not easy to land in. So that at the present time we are not contemplating any expenditures at Banff.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize the difficulties and I understand that attitude of the parks branch. I believe I have said before that it is archaic. I have done considerable flying in the national parks, and I know that, particularly in the winter months, the difficulties of landing are not as great as have been emphasized. I believe aircraft, and particularly the light variety, offer one of the few ways of really opening up the national parks.
When this matter is considered between the minister himself and the Minister of Mines and Resources, who has direction of the national parks, I hope consideration will be given to the tremendous advantage of making the national parks available to the people. At the present time eighty or ninety per cent of national park areas are not available, unless those who wish to go there outfit themselves with expensive pack trains or are prepared to go on major mountaineering expeditions, either of which is extremely costly. By means of aircraft, great areas of the national parks are made available to the man of average means.


Angus MacInnis: Surely the hon. member for York West does not mean that, by the use of air transportation, the parks will become available to persons of average means. Either they won't or his "person of average means" must have means considerably above what I consider average. [DOT] I think of my own constituency of Vancouver East, composed of average people-ordinary people, people who work in factories and stores.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In Russia they live in palaces.


Angus MacInnis: Some do; and in this country also, some people live in palaces. Perhaps the situation has not changed at all; except that different people are living in the palaces today than lived in them in the past.
But that is not what I am looking for- although it is what my hon. friend is afraid might happen. He is afraid there might be a change here in those who are living in the palaces today. I am thinking of the people who find it all they can do to take their children to the park on a Sunday afternoon or on a holiday-and travel by street car. These are the average people in Canada; and they do not go either by aeroplane or by pack train to our national parks.

Supply-Transport
I do not think any great claim can be made for the development of airstrips in our national parks. There is a great deal of development of civil aviation still to be done in Canada, and I shall be prepared to support the minister in that part of the development which is economically useful and reasonable.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Could we get back to a consideration of the specific details in the vote? What are the seventeen airports the minister took over last year?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a specific item for that later on, at which time I shall give the details.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is any portion of the $11,000,000 being voted for the development of new types of engines and experimental aircraft?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Where does that item come in?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no such item.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Do I understand that the dominion government has no interest in the experimental work going on at Malton airport?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, we have a deep interest-but not in this department. The Department of Reconstruction and Supply did spend a considerable amount of money on the development of aircraft engines and equipment. What the position is today in so far as their expenditures are concerned, I do not know. All I can say is that there is no provision in these estimates for that item.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does this amount of $11,000,000 represent more in the way of an initial outlay than a final or complete outlay for equipment for the air force for the supply of radio ranges and instrument Landing equipment?


Lionel Chevrier: It is neither the initial nor the final; this is a continuing item. I belie.ve I shall be able to establish, when I answer the question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, that we look at these airports across the country and decide how much it is possible to spend this year. Then we apportion it in accordance with the needs, safety and importance of the airport or aerodrome.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have had some experience with these matters and I know how costly it is. If Canada wishes to retain any place in the aviation field the government will have to be prepared to make these expenditures.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No doubt some of the expenditures will be for lengthening and
strengthening runways to accommodate the four-engine North Star aircraft? I understand that a jet transport plane is now being developed. If it is accepted, as it gives every promise of being, will the runways have to be strengthened or lengthened? Would the minister be good enough to say whether or not that consideration has been borne in mind in these appropriations?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed by the director of air services that the jet transport plane, as now being developed, will take about the same size of runway as the North Star.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understood, on what I believe was good authority-I know nothing about the technical details-that a jet-operated plane will not require as long a runway or as heavy a roadbed. Is that the fact?


Lionel Chevrier: It will require about the same strength of runway, but the length has not been determined.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will any substantial part of vote oil be used to lengthen runways to accommodate the new four-engine planes we are using?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has said he is in accord with the manner in which this government enterprise is being carried on. The facts have shown quite clearly in the last three months that private corporations are able to run in the black rather than in the red, but he claims that they should be taken over by the government. I think he is trying to mislead this committee and the people of Canada when he advocates taking over Canadian Pacific Air Lines and other similar companies that have [DOT]been able to operate without any assistance from the taxpayers. The Canadian Pacific have gone ahead on their own under private enterprise and are now operating at a profit. It is certainly a case of the blind leading the blind-they have been partly successful in the last three months-and the people will soon get on to that kind of nonsense. I think we are doing a great job of squandering the taxpayers' money. The fact is that the hon. gentleman knows nothing about aviation in any way, shape or form.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Sim-coe North says that private companies like the Canadian Pacific do not ask for a single dollar of the taxpayers' money. He makes that statement right at the moment this committee is voting $11 million, along with other items, to provide for air services which the minister
Supply-Transport

admitted a while ago constitute indirect assistance to all companies, including private air lines such as the Canadian Pacific.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I say this to the hon. member who has resumed his seat: Has not the Canadian Pacific railroad assisted the government railroad just as much as this? It is not all charity from- the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member is taking the wrong example there. He must know, as most of us do, the history of railroad development in this country. We know that back in the last century the public assistance to the Canadian Pacific was tremendous. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce first announced the government's aviation policy he said that one thin-g his government wanted to avoid was the kind of scandal we had in connection with the development of railroading in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-Civil aviation division

Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance
[Stage Direction]
51S.	Radio aviation services, $3,868,495.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have come to the conclusion that this committee has wonderful faith in the Minister of Transport and I am sure he must be gratified. Out of a total vote of $50,000,000, we are being asked to give a blank cheque for $10,000,000 because no details are shown for that amount. In vote 513 there is one item of $2,198,000 for which some details are given, but then there is a blank cheque for 70 per cent, or about $1,670,000, where there are no details whatever. That is quite all right if we have extreme faith in the minister, but I think -there should be more definite details for the $10,000,000 that is being voted for temporary assistance.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I understand what my hon. friend is getting at. We are now dealing with vote 513, which is for $3,868,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Details are given for
$2,198,000, but the $1,669,000 is without detail.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid my hon. friend is on the wrong page. The details are given on page 280 of the estimates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You have a vote of
$3,868,000, with temporary assistance of $1,669,805.


Lionel Chevrier: This vote is made up of salaries for employees of airways and airports
[Hr. Knowles.]
to the amount of roughly, $2,000,000. Then the
other items are:
Materials and supplies	  $564,000
Repairs and upkeep of buildings,
works and structures	 140,000
North Atlantic meteorological communications	 120,000
Light, power and Water	 132,000
Telegrams, telephones and postage ..	44,000
Printing and stationery	 25,000
Trans-Canada Air Lines operational
traffic contract	 287,000


Mr. COCKERAM:: Will the minister explain
that item?


Lionel Chevrier: Trans-Canada Air Lines operates a radio communication service by virtue of a contract made with the Department of Transport for which we pay $287,000. The total of those items is $3,868,000.


Alan Cockeram: I notice there is a reduction in the number of radio operators. With the expansion of Trans-Canada Air Lines and flying generally, it is surprising that there should be a reduction of practically forty.


Lionel Chevrier: There is an increase.


Alan Cockeram: Last year there were 108 radio operators, but this year the number is down to 62.


Lionel Chevrier: They were promoted to grade 2.


Alan Cockeram: Even then there is a reduction.


Lionel Chevrier: Instead of having 108 radio operators, grade 1, we have sixty-two.
Mr. COCKERAM-: There are twenty-six -radio operators, grade 2, and sixty-two radio op-erat-ors, grade 1, or eighty-eight altogether as compared with 108 last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there a-re twenty-seven radio technicians this year.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; -nineteen radio technicians, grade 2; two radio technicians, grade 3, and six radi-o technicians, grade 4. That accounts for it.
lM-r. ROSS (St. Paul's): On page 281 of the details the salaries f-or the permanent staff a-re shown as amounting to $336,974 and, for temporary assistance, $1,669,805. Why is that item for temporary assistance so large? What do they do?


Lionel Chevrier: In every department there has to be a proportion of temporaries. I d-o not know just what it is, but there is a ratio established between- temporaries and permanents. That practice has existed over the years.

Supply-Transport


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But there are five
temporaries to one permanent. I cannot understand why that should be.


Lionel Chevrier: We are behind in our conversion from temporaries to permanents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
515. Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $30,000.
Gordon Graydon: I want to say something in connection with the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association. I note in thie details relating to item 515 there is a grant to the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association of $5,000, and it is upon that item I desire to say a word or two. No doubt members of parliament generally have, from time to time, been kept in touch by the organization known as the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association with the financial aspect of the association's activities. As the minister knows and the committee is aware, prior to the war, indeed as early as 1928, a flying clubs association was set up, comprising the operators of flying clubs throughout Canada, and until the war broke out, government grants were made to each of these clubs. If my memory serves me aright, there was at one time a grant of $1,000 to each of these clubs from the dominion treasury. It requires no words of mine, Mr. Chairman, to indicate the vital importance of the work done and the contributions made by those who were trained in the flying clubs of this country prior to 1939. Some 350 pilots, properly trained, were available at the time war broke out. Many others had gone overseas prior to 1939 and enlisted in the Royal Air Force. The importance of the work done by these flying clubs therefore does not need to be -emphasized at this time, because it is generally recognized and is well known to all hon. members. But with the war the activities of these clubs were diverted, of course, to other things, and not until after the war was over did the old flying clubs attempt to re-establish themselves and new clubs come into being.
One of my personal interests in this matter is the excellent and progressive flying club which has been established in my own part of Canada near the town of Brampton. I think most of us realize what this means with respect to our whole national picture. There are at the present time some forty-three flying clubs in the organization known as the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association.
Training pilots has never been a profitable business; it has been an unprofitable business by and large, and I am told that none of these
clubs all across Canada is in a strong financial position, but rather that most of them can be said to be in a weak financial position, with some of them running definitely in the red. I do not need to emphasize to this committee or to the minister or the government how important flying training is to our national defence, or the other aspects of the club's activities which, of course, are valuable assets in peacetime set-up. Bearing that in mind, it seems to me-that the government should include in its estimates a grant or subsidy to these flying clubs. I know of nothing that would meet with more general approval, and I make an earnest plea to the minister now to see if that cannot be done before the session is brought to a close. It may be that the minister has in mind including an amount for that purpose in the supplementary estimates, and if so I hope that it will be a generous amount, because the young men who are operating the flying clubs are for the most part veterans who gave conspicuous service to their country in the recent war. They are trying now in another way to do something for Canada in peace, and perhaps also have in mind our national security in case of another emergency. I think, therefore, it becomes a matter of national concern. I should not like to see club after club go out of existence, simply because the government had not given them something in the way of the grant which they required.
The operational costs of these clubs have, of course, increased as have the operational costs of everything else. The clubs are confined, as you, Mr. Chairman, well know, to certain kinds of training, and they have not the opportunities of going into commercial business as some other concerns have whereby they can make a profit which helps to keep the other end of their operations out of the red. I hope that the minister will be sympathetic to the plea I am making on behalf of a section of our citizens who have done a magnificent job in war and are anxious to do a similar job in peace, through training young men in the art and science of flying. I would ask the minister to give every possible consideration to the plea I have just made.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have some knowledge of the work done by these clubs, because when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply I had the good fortune to be chairman of a subcommittee which went into this matter thoroughly and strongly recommended in favour of assistance being given to these clubs. In fact, I think the report went so far as to say that if it had not been for the
Supply-Transport

work of the flying clubs it would have been impossible to develop our air strength to the position it reached. The hon. gentleman will find me quite sympathetic to the application that has already been made. I have had the responsibility for this part of the Department of Transport for about a month. One of the first things that came to my attention then was this very matter to which my hon. friend refers. I have not been able to deal with it in the sense of arriving at a decision, but I can assure him that it will be given careful and most sympathetic consideration.
In this item $5,000 is provided for the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association. That, of course, does not begin to meet the position. It is a grant which is included in the estimates. When the time comes for consideration of the supplementary estimates I think I would be prepared to see that a similar amount is put in the supplementaries; but on the general question raised, I can tell the hon. member now that he will find me sympathetically disposed toward it.	*


Gordon Graydon: May I make one suggestion. I think something more than another $5,000 would be in order-


Lionel Chevrier: I agree.


Gordon Graydon: -because that would seem to me to be wholly inadequate. I believe the minister will agree with me that something much more substantial than that will be necessary to alleviate the present situation.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not intend to leave the impression that a grant of $5,000 or even S10,000 would meet the situation. Neither did I want to leave the impression that the problem can be dealt with in the supplementary estimates. I do not think it can be, but I can assure the hon. member that it will be carefully looked into.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I want to add a word. Some two months ago I made reference to this matter in the house. I think it was on the speech from the throne that I brought the matter to the attention of the minister. I do not believe the present minister was charged with that branch of the department at that time. When I saw these estimates I came to the conclusion that, in making an appeal for more consideration, I was just a voice crying in the wilderness. I mentioned at that time that civilian groups put large amounts of capital into the picture. At that time the flying clubs associations across Canada took hold of the promotion of the training of aviators so urgently needed at the beginning of the war.
When the minister mentions $5,000 I know
it is just a nominal amount. He has shown us

that he is sympathetic. The committee appreciates that, but I wish to remind the minister of the work done, not only by the personnel of the flying clubs associations, but by the great men who got behind this with their money. We do not know just how soon we may have to turn to these facilities again. In these days of uncertainty we never know what will happen. When the minister comes to make his decision I hope that he will put a couple of digits at the end of the $5,000.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I should like to support the stand that 'has been taken by the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Lincoln in requesting assistance for the flying clubs of Canada. In doing so, I shall not go into the job that they did before and during the war, except to say that they formed the elementary flying training schools which turned out the bulk of the British commonwealth air training plan pilots. As the minister knows, at the end of the war they turned back millions of dollars-I am prompted to say $6,000,000-to the government. It would be unfair if I did not point out the situation which has arisen as a result of some of the government's kindness to these clubs. Although they turned back their money, the government did hand over to them hangars and many other facilities at these various airports. We now find that the cost of operation and maintenance of the very things that were given to them has placed some of the clubs in an unfortunate position. We cannot criticize the government for what it has done. We can say that in many instances the clubs have taken, on more than they can handle. I suggest to the minister that the government consider permitting the clubs to draw on the moneys turned back at the end of the war for the training of pilots to licensed standards. I would say men and women pilots, because I do not think women should be excluded from the aviation field.
Of course we can turn to the defence side of the picture and make a good case for it there, but even on the civil side of it there is no doubt that our country is peculiar in the way in which it lends itself to all forms of aviation, geographically and in many other ways. Unless we develop pilots, we shall never be able to explore, settle or progress to the north in the way that we should. The moneys that were handed back could be used for this, and I am sure the minister could make a good case before his colleagues.
I was pleased to hear him say this afternoon that he had had an initial experience with these clubs. I am sure that his dealings

Supply-Transport
with them will have convinced him, as they have convinced me, from what I have seen of them, that at least they are run by excellent citizens, people with vision and imagination, people who, if given some assistance now, could continue to do the wonderful job for our country that they have in the past.
I shall end as I have begun by asking the minister for more than the sympathetic support of his colleagues. I ask him to put the case to them before the supplementary estimates are brought down, so that this temporary pre-war scheme can be reinstated and the whole position fully discussed between the government and the flying clubs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-Meteorological division-
516.	Meteorological services, $4,674,335.
Alan Cockeram: I notice that the total of wages and salaries paid to the permanent staff amounts to $376,478. The amount paid for temporary assistance amounts to $2,037,451. The minister has said that this happens in all departments of government. In this case I take the view that the amount is out of all proportion to the number of permanent employees of the department. Will the minister give us a breakdown of the $2,037,451? Let us have an explanation of this temporary assistance.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member would like an explanation of why the temporary assistance amounts to $2,037,451 as compared with the amount for permanent employees. The answer is that during the war it was impossible to make these employees permanent. That is why the relationship between permanent and temporary employees is so one-sided, Until such time as the war was over and we moved into a more stable position, it was not possible to do what my hon. friend has in mind. It will take some time before it can be done. When, I do not know. I am informed by my officials that it is being carried out gradually, and that the normal position, which should be, I suppose, eighty-five per cent permanent and fifteen per cent temporary, will be reached in due course. When, I cannot say.


Alan Cockeram: How many employees are covered by "temporary assistance"?


Lionel Chevrier: Roughly, 1,100.


Angus MacInnis: I think the hon. member for York South has a point there. There is nothing wrong with it, except that members of the committee do not know the number of temporaries as compared with the number of permanents. The matter came up in one of
the committees I happened to be on and there was some questioning. The explanation is fairly simple. The minister mentioned fifteen per cent as temporary. I believe the percentage given me was twenty.


Lionel Chevrier: It was at that time.


Angus MacInnis: I was given that the other day, but it is not worth quarreling about. During the war there was a great increase in many departments, and these additional employees will be for the most part temporaries until they have served their probation and have been made permanent. If the department, in presenting the estimates, would give the number and grades of temporaries as well as of those who are permanent it would cleaT away the difficulties and we would know where we stood.


Alan Cockeram: How many of these meteorological stations are there in Canada and what is the set-up? Some in the north country have only one man. Can the minister let us know something about the department in which we spend so much money?


Lionel Chevrier: There are about twelve main forecast offices in such places as Goose, Gander, Halifax, Moncton, Dorval, Malton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Whitehorse and Vancouver, and 220 surface weather reporting stations. Of these, 110 provide weather information every hour and thirty-five provide winds aloft information.


Alan Cockeram: Most of those in the north are the kind with only one man?


Lionel Chevrier: The surface weather stations would have from two to four, and the main forecast offices would have as many as forty. There are 740 climatological stations. Of these, about 460 are manned by voluntary observers.


George Randolph Pearkes: Two years ago the forecast station at Victoria was discontinued and, since then, we have been getting weather reports from Vancouver. It would appear that the weather on the south coast of Vancouver island has deteriorated ever since that change. Can we get our station back?-because really there has been no change in the weather.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good old weatherman.


John Lambert Gibson: Has the minister given further consideration to the establishment of a weather reporting ship off the north Pacific coast? I understand that representations have been made. Can such a ship be established? It is conceded that it would be a valuable addition to the facilities for providing weather information in Canada.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: There is no finality on that question. The matter is under consideration, but no decision has been arrived at.


John Lambert Gibson: Do the officials think it would be desirable to have such a station?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can you open up our Victoria station?


Lionel Chevrier: It is true that the station has been discontinued. Vancouver has been given the job of forecasting weather over that area.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have done it very badly.


Lionel Chevrier: The complaints are being investigated from head office here.
Mr. SiKEY: What is the division of responsibility as between the minister and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Are all these items which we have dealt with this afternoon under the immediate jurisdiction and authority of the Minister of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: During the war, when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was appointed Minister of Munitions and Supply, he assumed full responsibility for all air services and continued to have that responsibility until about a month ago. The position now is that the responsibility, which was at first with the Minister of Transport but which, by virtue of the Transfer of Duties Act, went to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, is once more under the Minister of Transport, save for responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines, which remains with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The responsibility is now with the Minister of Transport with that one exception.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no item in the estimates of transport for which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible to parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: So T.C.A. is now in the same situation as Polymer and Park Steamships?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The minister of reconstruction is operating the air lines and the Minister of Transport runs all the rest.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Air service-Radio division-
517.	Administration of the Radio Act and regulations, $540,277.
Alan Cockeram: Can the minister explain this set-up? I notice that there are many engineers. What are the duties of this division, having regard to Canadian broadcasting activities?


Lionel Chevrier: This estimate is a consolidation of the normal and former demobilization and reconversion appropriations. It provides for the headquarters staff at Ottawa engaged in the general administration of the radio division and the Radio Act. It provides for the operation and maintenance of five frequency standards and monitoring stations at Hartlen Point, Nova Scotia; Ottawa, Strath-burn, Ontario; Winnipeg, and Vancouver; two ionospherics observation stations at Clyde River, Baffin Island and St. John's, Newfoundland; the radio standards laboratory at Ottawa; aircraft radio inspection services at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, $12,205; and for prosecutions in connection with radio licences and other infractions under the act, $17,725.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I refer to the radio reception under this item?


Lionel Chevrier: That will come under item 519.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If this can be treated as a general item I should like to put some questions to the minister on the subject of television, because I see no other place I can deal with it. I want to begin by asking whether the department have any plans for inaugurating television service in at least the major urban centres of Canada in the near future.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that at their last meeting the board of governors of the Canadian broadcasting corporation gave consideration to this question. A report has not been forthcoming from the board, however, and until it is, I am afraid I am not in a position to give much information. I have some ideas, but I would not attempt to put them forward until I knew what the recommendation was, if there is one, of the C.B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the C.B.C. report to you?


Lionel Chevrier: It reports to the Minister of National Revenue; but, as far as licences are concerned, the Minister of Transport may approve the recommendations made by the board of governors of the C-B.C., and, as a rule, he does not interfere with those recommendations.

Supply-Transport


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am glad to learn that this decision has not yet been taken, because I should like to make one or two personal observations which I think will meet with the approval of anyone who has ever seen television in operation. May I ask the minister if he has ever seen a television set in operation?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I would strongly recommend that, before any decision is reached, the minister and as many as possible of his colleagues should see television demonstrated. Recently I had an opportunity of seeing it in operation, and I was tremendously impressed with the clarity with which the picture comes through on, the electronic beam and tube. I should like to put on record one or two statistics for the minister's consideration. In the first place, in the United States advertising by television has increased by over 800 per cent in one year. There are twenty-seven television broadcasting stations now in operation, and there will be a coast to coast hook-up in the United States by the end of this year.
These figures are significant when one realizes that here in Canada we have experts and electrical companies who have gone a long way in research in these fields. I have particular reference to \Ying Commander Patrick, formerly of the R.C.A.F., who is now with RCA-Victor and who was our radar specialist at Clinton school during the war. If the attitude of the C.B.C. can be liberal, shall I say, in this field I believe it will bring forth great advances in Canadian culture and in the sporting field. So I believe we should not only ask the C.B.C. to enter the television field, but that private radio stations should have the right to apply for television licences, which should be granted in particular to those serving urban centres.
I should like to touch on just one more point, and it is this. Unless the government takes action in the television field, we shall find our country invaded by the television broadcasters of the United States, in one way or another. If we wish to maintain our own institutions and our independent method of operation we should get moving now in the television field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-Radio division-*
5t8. Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $1,508,243.
George Randolph Pearkes: Representations have been made that the radio beacon service on the west coast has been far from satisfactory. I knowr, when the minister was visiting Vancouver island a year ago, this situation was pointed out to him, and I understood that efforts were being made to improve that service and to have two new radio beacons erected on the coast. What progress has been made in that direction?


Lionel Chevrier: We have been reviewing the position, and wre are making provision for two new beacons.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are included in this estimate?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Lambert Gibson: Where are those beacons to be located?


Lionel Chevrier: The sites have not been finally determined.


John Lambert Gibson: But they will be erected this year?


Lionel Chevrier: It is in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-Radio division-
519. Suppression of radio interferences, $321,281.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under this item, I want to bring two matters to the attention of the minister, one concerning radio reception in my district, and the other having to do with radio interference. In the district I have the honour to represent, wre have two radio stations, one at Trail and the other at Nelson. I speak of the situation there, because I know' in recent years these stations have served the outlying districts less and less, as a result of the increased power of the United States stations. The local stations serve the two communities of Trail and Nelson very well indeed, but in the upper portion of the Arrow lakes, particularly, and in some parts of the Kootenay lakes these stations cannot be heard satisfactorily, particularly at night. I am not an expert; I have very little knowledge of anything mechanical; but cannot something be done by putting in a booster station, or something of that sort, to provide satisfactory radio reception for those living in these isolated places? I realize it is a difficult problem, but quite a large number of my constituents now get very poor reception indeed, which I understand is largely due to the fact that the stronger United States stations drown out the local stations, particularly during the evening hours.
There is another point with respect to radio interference. It seems that as the years go by, interference becomes worse and worse. I understand that all the new electrical gadgets,
Supply-Transport

razors and machines of all types, cause a great deal of difficulty. I believe the departmental officials have toured the district and done their best to locate the trouble; but it is still a serious matter, so much so that in the upper Arrow lakes and some sections of the Kootenay lakes it is not worthwhile to listen to the radio. I do not know what the laws are in that respect; but I am sure something can be done to place protective devices on this electrical equipment, which is being used to a far greater extent than ever before; and this must be done if we are to have any sort of satisfactory radio reception.
I should like the minister's comments on the matter of reception and on the question of radio interference.


Lionel Chevrier: If the poor reception to which the hon. member refers is due exclusively to other, high-powered stations either in our own country or in another country, then the way to overcome that difficulty is for the private station to increase its power. That situation did not exist years ago, when many stations both in Canada and the United States used less power than they use today. The situation in my hon. friend's community is a duplication of what is happening elsewhere. Many of the smaller stations have found it necessary to make application for an increase in power, and in most cases, when the position is as my hon. friend states, these applications have been granted.
As far as interference is concerned, we have inspectors looking after such matters. I do not know where the nearest one would be to my hon. friend's constituency; I presume he would be in Vancouver, though I am not too sure. It is part of the duties of these inspectors to go out with the interference car and ascertain what may be the cause of the bad reception. There is a multitude of causes, such as defective wiring or alternate current.
\ ery often in the homes there are oil burners, washing machines and the like which affect the reception. If the hon. member will write to the inspector or say a word to the officers I think there would be no question about the inspector's going out, getting the facts and finding out what the causes are, with a view to eliminating them. Some of those causes are local, and sometimes people do not like to instal the equipment necessary to do away with the interference.


John Lambert Gibson: I have a problem similar to that mentioned by the hon. member. I am curious to know if there is any co-operation between the suppression branch of the minister's department and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I often
[Air. Herridge.]
think I would like to see the C.B.C. in the capable hands of the Minister of Transport. The two would work well together.
For instance, a man from the suppression branch comes to Alberni and states that there is no chance of proper or adequate radio reception there until C.B.C. programs are piped in by wire. The result is that 10,000 or 12,000 people have not proper or adequate radio coverage. I have applied to the C.B.C. for an extension of the wire facilities in there, but I am wondering what the effect would be if my representations were supported in some routine manner by the minister's department.


Lionel Chevrier: I have to tell the hon. member that there is no connection between the radio services of the Department of Transport and C.B.C. Perhaps the best answer to the question would 'be this, that if the radio service were under the C.B.C. or if the C.B.C. were under the radio service branch of this department, that would meet the position. C.B.C. operations have to do with the licensing of stations, not with the interference with and suppression of radio activity.


John Lambert Gibson: It has
always seemed to me that the Department of National Revenue could have nothing to do with radio. Certainly there is no revenue from the C.B.C. It would seem to me much more satisfactory to have it in the hands of the minister.


Ronald Stewart Moore: The hon. member for Mackenzie and I have had communications in the last two years in which we have pointed out radio interference at Gillam, Wabowden and Churchill, caused by the operation of government teletype machines at Churchill. Several attempts have been made to overcome the interference in the past, but I understand that up to the present time those attempts have not been successful. Would the minister look into the situation and, if possible, have it corrected?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already had correspondence with the Canadian National Telegraphs, and I shall look into the matter again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-Radio division-
520. Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport department only), $571,439.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Chairman, to my mind the C.B.C. should be under the wing of the Department of Transport. This vote shows extravagance on the part of the government, and there can be no justification for the vote at all. It is just a silly thing. This is a nuisance tax, and we find that the consolidated

Supply-Transport
revenue fund has to pay for the collection of this 12.50 tax, the amount of the licence fee.
The C.B.C. receives the full amount of fees collected. The situation is really incongruous. It is hard to understand how the government would act in this way. Here we have an expenditure of $571,439 to collect $4,798,000. I got those figures today from the C.B.C., and perhaps the minister would tell me if they are correct. This $571,439 is not chicken-feed; it is taken from the taxpayers of this country, just in the same way as any other taxing money comes from the taxpayers. This amount of money appearing in the vote is the expense in connection with the collection of moneys to be paid over to the C.B.C. It is raised by the Department of National Revenue, through taxation of one kind or another which, on the average, is collected for about one per cent. But when one looks at this he finds the ridiculous situation where it costs eleven per cent to collect this sum of $4,798,000 which is paid over to the C.B.C. I cannot understand how anyone with ordinary common sense would say that we should pay eleven per cent to collect a nuisance tax; and why it is collected, I do not know. Why pay that amount, when money can be collected for slightly more than one per cent?
More than that, many people forget to pay this tax, and other people do not buy licences. There are plenty of people who have radios and who have paid no tax.
Not only that, if you have one radio you must pay a tax of $2.50, but if you have ten radios you pay no more. However, if you have a radio in your car you must pay $2.50 extra. The whole thing is silly. And if one does not pay his tax, the next thing he knows he is hauled into court and must pay not only the tax but the expense of collecting it, and a fine.
Why is the tax collected? It is collected, supposedly, to support the C.B.C. in its programming. Yet, in many places the C.B.C. cannot be heard. Only a short time ago in Fort Frances, while the C.B.C. could not be heard, the people were forced to pay their tax, simply because they had radios.
This amount is not for the policing of radio, because that is provided for in another vote. The Department of Transport does that on another basis by an expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund. This $571,439 is simply for the collection of the $2.50 fee from everyone. It is collected from the pensioner who gets only $40 a month, from the burnt-out soldier, from the widows-and to these people the expenditure means a great deal. The whole thing is ridiculous.
And, what is worse, it is not the listener who must pay, but the owner of the radio. It is he
who pays the sales tax, the 25 per cent luxury tax; and because he has a radio operating he must pay this fee of $2.50. The whole thing is so silly! I cannot say how silly I think it is! What the principle is I do not know. If you are going to tax at all, you should tax every radio. On the other hand, if you are going to tax you ought to tax the people who are listening, not the people who have the radio and are giving enjoyment to the public who have no radio.
I just have to make this protest again. I could go on and talk much longer. Parliament passed an act which provided that the C.B.C. were not to be charged for the collection of this fee as had been the case in the past. All you need to do if the C.B.C. needs money is to pay them something for every person in Canada, pay them on a per capita basis and have them stick to that, instead of having this nuisance tax, having people come up and ring your doorbell and ask if you have paid your radio fee. There are hundreds of other people who have not and others are called into court because they have not paid or have neglected to pay. The thing is just too silly when one comes to think of it.
It costs $571,439 to collect $4,798,000 which the C.B.C. get without any charge. Why should they get the total amount? It is only a subterfuge. If they need more money, why not raise the rates, or why not charge on every radio?
If this is an indication of government policy in connection with the estimates of the other departments; if all estimates are as extravagant as this, then we ought to scrutinize the estimates of all the departments much more than we have been doing. This $571,439 is the taxpayers' money, and it is collected for no reason at all that I can see.


Alan Cockeram: This item reads:
Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport department only).
What other cost is there in the issuing of radio licences if this does not cover it all?


Lionel Chevrier: There are accounting services by the Department of Transport.


Alan Cockeram: In going through the minister's estimates, I find that over three-quarters of a million dollars are for sundry items. Surely there should be a better system of handling expenses, so that you would not need to have over $750,000 in sundry items.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I Should like to have the minister's opinion of this $2.50 tax on radios. I want to know whether he thinks eleven per cent is a reasonable cost of collecting this tax?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I think eleven per cent is mere than good; it is more than what it would cost to do it in any other way. The hon. member has been critical of this item, but he has not suggested any other way in which it can be done.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have suggested that a per capita amount be granted to the C.B.C. from the consolidated revenue fund, and in that way it could be collected for a little over one per cent. The minister says this is an economical way to collect this tax, but how would he like to collect all taxes and have it cost eleven per cent? How can he justify taxing the poor fellow with one radio $2.50, while the other fellow with ten needs to pay only the same amount? Then those who cannot get reception from the C.B.C. have to pay as well.


Lionel Chevrier: I repeat that eleven per cent for collection of this licence fee is not only average; it. is good. I do not know of any other way in which it can be done as economically. My hon. friend has suggested a method, but if it were done in that way it would destroy the independence of the C.B.C.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It would not destroy their independence.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has been doing a lot of talking, and perhaps he will allow me to say something. The hon. member makes a speech on this item every time it comes up. He does not like the $2.50 charge and I do not imagine anybody else does. However, there must be a charge in order to administer this service. At one time it was $2 and then it was increased to $2.50. It has not been changed in the last several years. My hon. friend wants to know what I think of it. I think the fee is a fair one. Perhaps it would be far better if it were possible to do without it, but I think the charge is fair, having regard to the service given. I do not think the average person who sits at home and listens to a program from the C.B.C. or some other station will complain very much about the $2.50. The proof of that lies in the fact that on an average the people pay up fairly well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five cents a week.


Lionel Chevrier: On an average they pay more voluntarily in the radio field than they do in others. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says it is only five cents a week. No one can complain about that. I suppose, on this item, we could enter into an argument which would go on a long time. I am familiar with my hon. friend's views, because I have heard them before. He is entitled to them, but I do not think it would be advisable at this time to do away with the $2.50 fee.


Mr. SHAW:: It occurred to me when I first examined this estimate that the cost of collecting the licence fees was unreasonably high, and I have not been entirely convinced that it is not. The minister asserts that they have adopted the best method possible, at least what they believe is the best method possible for the collection of these licence fees. I fancy that the government would be well advised to give further consideration to a less costly method of collection.
It is true that eleven per cent might be quite reasonable, having regard to the methods employed, but I personally feel that the government would be well advised to give further consideration to developing a better method. On page 285 of the estimates appears the following item:
Payments to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in lieu of commissions to issuers.
I should like to have some clarification of that statement. My understanding is that the Department of Transport now remits to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation $2.50 for each $2.50 collected, the cost of collection being a charge against the Department of Transport. I am not positive as to the reason for the change in procedure, unless it was to make the balance sheet of the C.B.C., a public enterprise, look more favourable to the public. I sometimes think that was the reason. Will the minister explain that statement at the bottom of page 285?


Lionel Chevrier: The authority for the change whereby the Minister of Finance passes directly into consolidated revenue fund the amount of the licence fees is to be found in section 14 (1) (a) of the -Canadian Broadcasting Act, which was amended last year. That amendment reads:
(a) the gross amount of the moneys received in each year from licence fees in respect of private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences without deducting therefrom any costs of collection or administration.
Prior to that, costs of collection were deducted. That is why this vote has been increased, because it includes not only the cost of administration but the commission to the agents who collect the licence fees.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister argued that if so much money was taken from consolidated revenue and handed over to the C.B.C. it would destroy its independence. That is exactly what is happening now; the money is being handed over to the C.B.C., but its independence is not destroyed. I cannot see how the minister can justify the present situation in which $57-1,000 is taken from the taxpayers of Canada in order to collect this

Supply-Transport
$2.50 licence fee. No inspection is given in return for the licence fee, no more than is given of an electric heater or a stoker that a man may have in his home; nor does the department get any benefit from this $2.50. The thing is silly.


Alan Cockeram: Would the minister explain that item of sundries and let us know why a little closer estimate cannot be made of the department's requirements?


Lionel Chevrier: Which item?


Alan Cockeram: I was referring to the sundries items which appears all through these estimates. These sundries amount to over three-quarters of a million dollars.


Lionel Chevrier: In most of the administrative votes, not only for air services but other branches, there is a breakdown and, as my hon. friend says, there are a number of items for sundries. They are to cover miscellaneous unforeseen expenses which cannot be classified under a particular heading such as "salaries."


Alan Cockeram: What is covered by "sundries?" They do not cover printing, telegraph and telephone service, because these items are mentioned separately.


Lionel Chevrier: I am trying to tell my hon. friend what is covered by "sundries," if he will allow me. Apparently he has made an addition of all the sundry items. I have not added them up and do not know what they total. What I am trying to say is that in every business or corporation, and much more so in government, there are a number of unforeseeable expenses that come up from time to time, depending on things that take place. In the administrative items there is a breakdown. If my hon. friend wants a detailed explanation of all the sundries I suppose I could ask my officers to procure the information, but it would be an almost impossible task to give a breakdown of sundries. I am looking now at the item for sundries in the vote for departmental administration, transport. The amount is $22,591.


Alan Cockeram: There is another item for sundries totalling $301,120.


Lionel Chevrier: Which is that?


Alan Cockeram: I will find it.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another one in the radio service for $30,000. It has to do with increased cost of snow removal, increased contributions to unemployment insurance, rental of buildings, equipment and land which had not been foreseen and which was not provided for when the main estimate was made up. All that was lumped in the item for sundries.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to say something about prosecutions for not having a radio licence. In the first year the prosecutions were practically confined to the city of Toronto. There were practically no prosecutions in this city or in the city across the river. Furthermore, there should be uniformity in the fines. A person should not be fined $25 in one town and practically nothing in another town. There should be a uniform scale of fines. I look upon the radio corporation as one of the most mischievous in this country. They give our hon. friends to our left a great deal of advertising. I do not blame them for getting it, but they do get it. Our proceedings in this house might just as well be conducted in secret for all the reports that are carried of them on the radio or in the newspapers. The columnists in the gallery walk out as soon as questions on the orders of the day are over, and let the public know only what they choose to have them know about proceedings here. I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates, because he has been here all day. I am not objecting to my hon. friends to the left always getting the radio and press precedence in the proceedings of the house. No doubt some speeches here about their policies are good, and some not so good.
There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the radio programs and cost of licences and fines. The public do not think they are what they should be. Secondly, we are spending a very large sum of money on radio. I know the minister has not had charge of radio for very long, but I do say that there should be equality of treatment and a schedule of fines for one and all, with equality. I fail to see why a person should be fined $25 in our police courts and practically nothing in some other city with no prosecutions in some. That might have been what an hon. member was referring to yesterday when he spoke of the magistrates' courts. On the whole, though, I have found them fair. There should be a lot of improvements made before we spend all this money on radio.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word in connection with the matter of radio licences? 1 realize that it is very popular to complain about any tax and that it is similarly unpopular to defend a tax; but it seems to me that this is one tax, if you can call it that, about which there is not much complaint, and to which there should be little objection.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member must have been asleep.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did you hear the hon. member for St. Paul's?
Supply-Transport


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; that is what
prompted me to get to my feet; you can blame him for my intervention at this time. The minister caught my interjection that this $2.50 means only five cents a week. I think that is a pretty small amount to pay for the service which we are getting from the C.B.C., and for what the C.B.C. is doing in helping to bring this country closer together, to improve programs and generally add to our cultural development. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for St. Paul's complain about this huge amount of money, $2.50 a year, which amounts to five cents a week. When I went to a show last Saturday I found that, despite the fact that the amusement tax had been taken off by the federal government, it was still being collected by the provincial government of Ontario.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For the hospitals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is being collected by a government which the hon. member for St. Paul's supports. I find that if one goes to the Capitol theatre in the afternoon the ticket costs thirty cents, plus six cents tax. If you go in the evening the ticket costs forty-six cents, plus nine cents tax.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought you fellows couldn't afford to go to the theatre.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the afternoons?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saturday. I go so seldom that I had to telephone the theatre just now to find out what these amounts were.


John Lambert Gibson: Buy a liquor licence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will leave that to my hon. friend who is trying to get the floor. The hon. member for St. Paul's supports the government of the province of Ontario which charges six cents for a two-hour show in the afternoon and nine cents for a two-hour show at night; yet he kicks about five cents a week for a licence for a radio to which you can listen twelve or fourteen hours a day, seven days a week.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member who has just spoken forgot my opening remarks. I said there was no justification for this vote. I suggested that a cost of $571,000 to collect $4,000,000 odd was out of the question.


Lionel Chevrier: We heard you.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, I know. I suggested that that was not an economical or

a sound way of doing it; that is all. I also mentioned that it was not a fair tax. If the hon. gentleman thinks a cost of eleven per cent is the right way to collect the tax, all I can say is that probably that is C.C.F. policy, but I do not agree with it. I do not think it is right, and I cannot see any principle on which it is based. I cannot see 'the principle on which the tax is collected. You either license the radio or you license the listener. What are you going to do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All that my hon. friends are trying to do is to harpoon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No, I have nothing of the kind in my mind. I think the corporation is doing a wonderful job. I do not mind saying that, but I say there is another way of collecting this tax. There is no harpooning in it. I think this is an extravagant way of collecting money that is to be used for the development of radio, and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat knows it.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member for St. Paul's to address the Chair when he rises to speak. I *want to be fair to all hon. members.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Why is it necessary to subsidize the C.B.C. either by the tax that is collected from the individual as a radio licence fee, or by the government, when independent radio stations are self-sustaining without any assistance?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the $6-4 question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed the reason is that the C.B.C. have to provide programs which involve a certain cost, and they have no revenue other than this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, they have.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They have commercials.


Lionel Chevrier: They have some commercial revenue, but not enough to meet expenses, and that is one of the reasons why it was decided last year to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Act, in order to provide for the payment into the consolidated revenue fund of these licence fees, so that the C.B.C. could get the full advantage.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Does the C.B.C. not
charge any fee for the use of their stations by individuals as private stations do? We have a private station in my own riding. It serves all that section of western Ontario. The operators of that station started out with absolutely nothing. Now it is one of the best radio stations we have in western Ontario.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid my hon. friend is entering into a field for which I have no responsibility. I am not responsible for the operations of the C.B.C.; the Minister of National Revenue is. There is an item in his estimates, or annexed to his estimates, covering that. I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would direct his question to the Minister of National Revenue.


John Lambert Gibson: I am given to understand that marine radio telephone stations are required to make a deposit of $50 with the Department of Transport. Is that so?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am informed that that is correct.


John Lambert Gibson: That is unfortunate. Our fishermen are honest chaps. Most of them who have a radio station on their ships have invested $70,000 or $80,000 in these ships. If they go into the oil dock to get oil it is naturally assumed that the ship is liable for any fee. I wonder whether this is not an unnecessary amount of capital that we are asking our fishermen to tie up when we ask them to make these deposits. I would hardly think it should be necessary. It is a reflection on our maritime fishermen,


Mr. TIMMINS:: With respect to this item, it occurs to me this is the proper time to make a protest in connection with the way in which part of the money which we are voting here is spent by the C.B.C. I am not going to take any time on this, but I want to say it seems silly for us to be taking money from the people in radio licences and at the same time pouring it down the drain by a lot of advertising that the C.B.C. carries every day. In the papers in Toronto, and probably throughout the dominion as well, we have an advertisement which is called "Kesten's Corner". It is an advertisement in respect of CJBC. They call it "Better Listening".


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman and say that I have no responsibility for the matter which he is now discussing. This item has to do with radio receiving licences. I am not responsible for the operation of C.B.C. or for the expenditures.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I do not want to labour this point. I simply say that to me it is incongruous that on the one hand the Minister of Transport is asking for money in respect of these matters, and on the other hand we, the representatives of the people, can see the money being poured down the drain in a lot of nonsense in respect of radio advertising. I make my protest. This minister may not
be able to deal with it, but there is a lot of silly advertising material in the papers with respect to a corporation which is really a monopoly, and it is quite out of order. Somewhere along the line we should make a protest., and I make that protest now.


Alan Cockeram: I want to go back to sundries. The minister did not realize that there was one item of $301,120, a sundry item in his estimates. Surely there is an explanation for an item of that size. It is on page 279 of the estimates, in airways and airports.


Lionel Chevrier: We have passed airways and airports.


Alan Cockeram: But we are talking of these sundry items.	.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not propose to go back to sundries in connection with airports.


Alan Cockeram: You were going to just now. I got you in an embarrassing spot on this and you will not answer; that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: You may think I am in an embarrassing spot.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Under what item can I find collection of fees for sending and receiving radio stations on ships? I am interested in this matter in connection with fishing boats. Under what item does the $50 deposit come?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it is under item 517.


Alan Cockeram: Will the minister give the details of this item for sundries?


Lionel Chevrier: If it is the $301,120
which we have already passed, it has to do with proficiency allowances, telegrams, telephones, travelling expenses and other miscellaneous expenses and, having regard to the fact that the vote covered $11,138,000, proportionately, it is about the same as any other administrative branch.


Alan Cockeram: All through these estimates there are items which we vote for telegrams, telephones, printing and so on. Why should they come back in sundries? There is a little extra money that should not be there.


Frederick Davis Shaw: We understand that each year radio licence renewal forms are sent out. I believe there are inspectors constantly at work making a check-up in the various communities throughout the country, with reference to these licences. I find nothing on page 285 making provision for inspectors to carry on this work. How many such persons are there, and where is provision made for them?


Lionel Chevrier: Under item 517.
Supply-Transport


William Alexander McMaster: This is a case where we are spending money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Lionel Chevrier: No. We are not spending money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are collecting licence fees.


William Alexander McMaster: It is done to obtain money for them. It is rather a bonus to them, and what I protest against is this. If you ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a statement showing how their expenses are made up they give you about four items. One is for talent, which is something over $1,000,000; another is for engineering, also something over $1,000,000, and there are several items which go to make up a sum approximately the same as the amount of the licence fees collected, that is, $4,800,000. We have every reason to object to this item, unless the C.B.C. will give to parliament a detailed statement showing how the money is spent. It is another case where the government hides behind a crown corporation; yet, because of its majority in parliament, asks us to bonus that corporation, and we have no control over their expenses.


Mr. LENNARD:: The minister asked for suggestions with regard to collecting the money required for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have a suggestion which I think would prove satisfactory. Instead of having this nuisance tax, with the trouble and expense entailed in collecting it every year, it might be done away with, and while there might be a period in which the revenue would be slim, I suggest that new radios sold could have a tax put upon them which would be final and there would not be all this fuss that we have seen this afternoon.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member for York South asked a question regarding sundries and the minister said that sundries covered telephones, telegrams and so on.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If that is the case, why do we find, listed above sundries-


Lionel Chevrier: I was dealing with the particular item to which reference was made, the $301,000 odd in connection with airports and airways, where there was no provision for telegrams and the like.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What would sundries in these other items cover? That is what the hon. member was asking.


Lionel Chevrier: No. He was asking for a breakdown of the other item.

Mr. COCKERAMi: I asked that before you said it was telegrams.


Lionel Chevrier: This particular item was passed two hours ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not the item I am asking about.


Lionel Chevrier: The item yo>u are asking
about was passed two hours ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am asking about the item at the bottom of page 285 of the estimates. It is a small amount, but there is another "sundries", and these are the ones the hon. member was asking about.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give any other explanation than that which I gave the hon. member for York South some time ago, namely, that it is to take care of expenses which cannot be foreseen when the main estimates are brought down. Another point I attempted to make at the time was that in every corporation and business there is an item covering miscellaneous and sundry expenses and, having regard to the small amount of $7,790 with reference to the entire vote, it is not out of proportion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked if that covered telegrams and telephones-


William Henry Golding: It being six o'clock, I now leave the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the item carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
429. Citizenship registration branch, $165,105.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like briefly to discuss one matter and to ask some questions of the Secretary of State, arising out of the appointment last July by the government of a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the claims of persons of Japanese race arising out of their dispossession of lands and personal property at the time of the movement eastward of those people in the hectic days after the Japanese entry into the war.
I do not intend to go back over the long story which was revealed before the public accounts committee during the session of 1947. I merely make this comment on the facts as elicited by that committee, that, making all allowances

Supply-Secretary of State
for the grave exigencies of the times, the story does not reflect credit upon the administration of the lands and properties of those persons. In most cases those lands were taken from them and sold by the custodian of enemy property, an officer of the government, to another government department at a price which I submit was unwarrantably low and altogether inadequate. That is clearly established by the fact that the price paid by the one government department to the other did not yield more than two-thirds of the assessed valuation; and when some of these properties were valued at a later date it was found that the values established by the officers and committees appointed by the custodian of enemy property were in the aggregate more than twice those established by the other government department, namely the Veterans' Land Act administration, for these properties. In the case of some few which were sold in the open market, the values realized were several times those paid for similar properties by the government department which bought them, namely the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I do not intend to go into that story in greater detail. It was fully covered in the public accounts committee, which submitted a report to this house. In the concluding paragraph of that report, the committee made what I conceive to be an important recommendation. The report of the public accounts committee was tabled in the house on June 17, 1947, and was adopted by the house on motion on June 27. The report will be found set out at pages 536 and 537 of the Journals of the House for 1947. The recommendation in the concluding paragraph of the report reads:
In view of the evidence adduced and in order that more information may be obtained as to the desirability of adjusting any apparent discrimination or loss which may have resulted from the taking over or sale of property of any kind, your committee recommends that a commission be appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the claim of any person of the Japanese race now resident in Canada for alleged loss which resulted from the amount received by him being less than the fair market value of his property at time of sale or loss.
That is the recommendation which was adopted by the house without dissent. I draw attention to the concluding words. The royal commission which was proposed should inquire into and report upon the claim of any person of Japanese race for alleged loss resulting "from the amount received by him being less than the fair market value of his property at time of sale or loss." Some weeks later the government did proceed to appoint a royal commission. That appointment was announced
from Ottawa on July 23, 1947. The government appointed as royal commissioner Mr. Justice Henry I. Bird of the British Columbia Supreme Court. In the statement issued by the Secretary of State announcing the appointment of Mr. Justice Bird as royal commissioner, the terms of the commission of inquiry were set forth. In those terms, the commissioner was instructed to report to the governor in council-and these are the words used:
. . . the claims which, in his opinion, are well founded and the amount which, in his opinion, would fairly and reasonably compensate the claimant for failure of the custodian to exercise reasonable care.
I draw attention to the fact that those terms of reference were very much restricted as compared with those approved by this house on the recommendation of the public accounts committee. They confined the scope of the inquiry to claims arising out of negligence in administration on the part of the custodian of enemy property. That was not a democratic action on the part of the government; and I am sure all hon. members are glad that wiser and more democratic counsels prevailed within the government, because on September 12, 1947, the Minister of Justice announced that the order in council providing for the inquiry into the disposition of the property of persons of the Japanese race had been broadened to meet with suggestions made by the public accounts committee in its report to parliament.
I have looked for that second .order in council of September 12, 1947, enlarging and broadening the terms of reference. I have not been able to find it; but I take it that the press dispatch announcing the passing of the order in council was an accurate statement, and that the commission of inquiry was broadened to conform with the precise terms of the recommendation of the public accounts committee, which was unanimously endorsed by this house. In passing, I would ask the Secretary of State to give the committee the terms of the order in council of September 12 enlarging the scope of the inquiry.
I have seen press dispatches of the same date indicating that the task before the royal commissioner, Mr. Justice Bird, in all probability would consume no less than three years. It is a large task, and no doubt involves a detailed review of many claims, each involving proof of perhaps a number of items, many of them no doubt small, and in circumstances such as to render it perhaps difficult today to obtain complete evidence, by reason of the fact that six j"ears have passed since the date of dispossession.
There are some questions hon. members will wish to ask. I for one wish to ask certain
Supply-Secretary oj State

questions of the Secretary of State with reference to the progress 'being made by the royal commissioner in the heavy task he has assumed. I would ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to give a report on the sittings of the commission to date, telling how many claims have been filed, whether the royal commissioner has made any interim report with respect to the claims he has heard, whether any action has been taken by the government on the reports so made, how long the hearings are expected to last, how they are progressing, and other questions of a similar nature.
May I add this in closing, that in acting in conformity with the wishes of the house as expressed on June 27, at the time of the adoption of the report of the committee on public accounts, the government in my opinion has acted properly, although tardily; and it is the hope of many of us that even at this late date justice will be done to those who suffered from a situation which no doubt can be attributed directly to the exigencies of the war, but the impact of which, many of us think, fell unfairly and in a discriminatory manner upon these unfortunate persons of the Japanese race.
I do not wish to open any old wounds. However, at this time I think all hon. members will wish to concentrate on seeing that, so far as possible, at this late date, full efforts are made to redress the property losses which these persons, residents of Canada, sustained in those trying days.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: To answer this question, I would say that the commission which was appointed comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. However I shall secure a copy of the terms of reference as extended by the order in council of September 12, 1947, and see that it is tabled. I understand that in the neighbourhood of 1,800 claims have been filed, that the commissioner has held hearings in Vancouver and throughout the western provinces, that he has completed his hearings in Toronto and is at present completing them in Montreal. I understand that he will be returning to the west and will hold further hearings upon reaching Vancouver.
In the meantime, other judges have been appointed with power to hear evidence, so that the commission may be completed at as early a day as possible. I understand that up to the present no interim report has been filed.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say a few words at this time; and in doing so-


William Henry Golding: We are on item 429, citizenship registration branch.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I thank the hon. member for Eglinton for mentioning this matter and dealing with it in the manner in which he has. I thought of rising myself, but I was not sure whether it would be proper to do so, while the lost property is subject to inquiry by the royal commissioner.
I have a large number of cases which, on the surface, appear to show that a tremendous injustice has been done to many of these people. As a matter of fact, injustice has been done to them, apart from their loss of property. There has been, however, that injustice in the matter of property. I appreciate that it will be difficult to give those claims their proper value, because one has to keep in mind the accretion of property values from the time these people were moved from the Pacific coast to the present.
There can be no point in emphasizing the matter further at this time, but I hope the royal commission will keep in mind not only the value of the property itself and that there will be adequate recompense in that regard, but also the injustice that has been done to these people by uprooting them and scattering them throughout the country in the way it was done.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Chairman,
I have in the back of my mind a profound respect for our approach to problems of this kind with regard to the civilization which you, sir, and I, and all of us in Canada enjoy under our present standards. But when my hon. friend rises in his place and uses an expression of the magnitude of "tremendous injustice," when speaking of those people who, while residents of Canada, are not necessarily citizens of this country, I have cause to wonder. These people perhaps feel today, and looking back over the last two or three years hold the view that, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, they have been uprooted, and cast here and there.
This was the uprooting of a few citizens of Japanese origin who were placed in other parts of Canada because we were worried about their proximity to a coastline nearest to their mother country. We thought, in our wisdom, that it was necessary to transplant them-and I use that word for the lack of a better one-or to put them somewhere, so that, geographically, they might not be in a position to act as their hearts might dictate or in a way which might be to the advantage of the race from which they sprang, the land beyond, whence they came.

Supply-Secretary oj State
We have to ask ourselves whether we were not justified in transplanting them at some point removed from the district in which they might be of some assistance to their fellows in their homeland of Japan, thus preventing them from acting in a manner which would be detrimental to those of us who call ourselves Canadians.
I do not think it was a great sacrifice to transfer them from one point to another in this wonderful land of Canada, thus in turn removing them from the temptation of yielding to inclinations which they might have in their minds and hearts, that of being of some assistance to their native land.
I do not think they had to sacrifice much or were greatly embarrassed. I do not think this "tremendous injustice" was quite so tremendous, when I remember what was happening about that time. It was my high privilege in 1944 to be "down under" in Australia when I had the honour of listening for some two hours and a half to General MacArthur's deposition as to what happened when he found himself brushed out or transferred from the Philippines along with a lot of other United States citizens and citizens of other countries. But many were left there to suffer at the hands of the Japanese and the Filipinos in that particular geographical section.
I could not avoid thinking of those who had been left there in that year 1944, because I am one, among other highly privileged citizens, who has passed through his hands in the last two decades close to 1,000 nursing sisters who graduated from the hospital services under a board of which I had the honour to be chairman. General MacArthur got out of the Philippines, but he left behind many of those nursing graduates. They were dear souls, upon many of whom I had had the privilege of pinning that little graduation pin. I could not avoid thinking of those ambitious women who had been left in the Philippines when everyone else had gone.
I think of what happened or what might have happened to those young women who, in the service to humanity, had signed their names to that particular nursing service. Then, in this chamber tonight I had to listen to the hon. member for Vancouver East-I marked his words down-saying that tremendous injustice had been done to the men and women of the Japanese race through being transferred from one part of Canada to another. This has been done under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. How are we to compare this injustice, which is called "tremendous" by the hon. member, with the injustice done by our friends of Japan to these innocent 5849-320
young women of the nursing profession who unfortunately found themselves in Japan and in the Philippines when our friends of the United States boarded steamships and pulled away and left them?
For two and a half hours I interviewed these men who had got away from the Philippines, but during those two and a half hours I thought not of what General MacArthur had to say to those who were privileged to be there-I call the hon. member for Vancouver East as a witness because he sat in the same room-but only of those young women who had been left behind. Yet we hear the hon. member saying that a tremendous injustice has been done to the Japanese through being re-established. I ask him to rise in his place and tell this honourable chamber of those tremendous injustices. He was there in 1944 and he heard the evidence of General MacArthur when we were in Australia. I ask him to state whether or not this Canada of ours has not been abundantly fair to that other part of civilization known as the Japanese race.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Joseph Henry Harris: When you compare what occurred there with what took place-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.


Joseph Henry Harris: -during the evacuation of the Philippines-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As one who would like to reply to this, may I point out that it is wholly out of order on this item.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Are you running this committee?


William Henry Golding: The item before the committee is the citizenship registration branch. The hon. member for Eglinton asked permission to ask some questions about the commission which was established to inquire into sales of Japanese property, which questions should have been asked on the administration item. The hon. member for [DOT] Winnipeg North Centre is quite right; we should not deal with this matter under the item before the committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: I realize your difficulty, Mr. Chairman, and I realize the difficulty my hon. friend is faced with in trying to bring his mind into position, so that he can deal with a subject which has been greatly enlarged since it was first entered upon.
Mr. KNOWLES1: I rise to a question of privilege. This committee knows that none in
Supply-Secretary of State

this group is afraid to deal with this question. The point of order I raised was raised solely as a point of order. I submit that this subject is out of order on this item. I think you were generous, Mr. Chairman, and properly so, in letting the hon. member for Eglinton ask the question which he did and to which he got an answer, but I do not think we should take all night discussing a matter that is not really relevant to the item before the committee.


Colin William George Gibson: When we were on this item last night the hon. member for Eglinton came into the chamber after having been at a committee meeting. He got here just after the first item was passed. He asked if he could speak, and I informed him that I would be glad to answer any question that he brought up which he had not had an opportunity of bringing up earlier in the evening. However I do not think we should enter into a general discussion on this item.


Joseph Henry Harris: I quite realize the minister's position. My only question of privilege is to be permitted to reply to two words which emanated from one section of our organization, namely, "tremendous injustice" to the Japanese race. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the best thing would be to let those who have occasion to listen or to read draw their own conclusions, and I include you, sir, and every member of this honourable chamber, and more particularly the minister who is piloting these estimates. Tremendous injustices? Just read the record and draw your own conclusions, and I shall be content with the considered judgment of all those who can read.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: A Canadian woman who marries an alien loses her Canadian citizenship. What process has she to go through to get back her Canadian citizenship?


Colin William George Gibson: Under the new Citizenship Act a Canadian woman who marries an alien no longer loses her status as a Canadian.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: She does not lose her Canadian citizenship if she marries an alien?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Alan Cockeram: The minister told us the other day that 15,000 citizenship certificates were issued last year. Is that correct? While the minister is looking that up, I notice that we paid close to $200,000 in salaries for the issuance of these 15,000 certificates. That is quite a large sum for 15,000 certificates. Would the minister explain why this great expense is incurred in issuing these certificates? This item deals with the citizenship registra-

tion branch. Further on, there is another item dealing with the citizenship branch. Why are these two items separate?


Colin William George Gibson: They are two entirely separate branches. The registration branch was formerly the naturalization branch. It makes all the investigations that are necessary of those who apply for citizenship. A great deal of work is involved in going through the records of all those who file their applications. The branch has a great deal of correspondence. Last year, for instance, we had 125,000 items of correspondence alone in that department.
Reference has been made to the amount of money expended. This year we are asking for $165,000, of which $10,000 is to microfilm a lot of old records. A great deal of space has been taken up by maintaining files of all those who have been naturalized, and it has been found that a great saving of space can be made by microfilming the important documents and destroying the others.


Alan Cockeram: I take it that the estimate we are now discussing is for citizenship registration?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that is right.


Alan Cockeram: I notice that there are twenty-one permanent employees. How many temporary employees are there in this branch?


Colin William George Gibson: There are eighty-five employees altogether, twenty-one of Whom are permanent.
Mr. COCKERAM1: In other words, the temporary employees are receiving twice the amount in salaries that the permanent employees receive.


Colin William George Gibson: The temporary employees are receiving $83,000, and the permanent employees, $42,000.


Alan Cockeram: Just about twice the amount.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.
Mr. COCKERAM1: In view of the fact that many applicants have now received their papers, why are so many temporary employees needed? Are you going to clean out the temporaries?
'Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West): It is not a case of having employees who are filling positions which are temporary. The positions will probably be there forever. During the war we did not make employees permanent, because we were reserving the positions for those who came back from overseas. Until the civil service commission has had an opportunity of going

Supply-Secretary oj State
through each department and deciding how many positions should be permanent and how many temporary, we are not able to make permanent appointments of some of those who have been acting as temporary employees. We have at present only twenty^ome permanent employees, but later on I hope that we shall have an establishment providing for a higher number of permanent employees. In that case some of those who have had overseas service will be eligible for permanent appointment.


Alan Cockeram: How many citizenship papers were issued last year?


Colin William George Gibson: The certificates issued by that branch numbered 25,691.


Joseph Henry Harris: Surely the minister did not mean that some of these positions would be retained forever. Will the service not gradually grow less and less?


Colin William George Gibson: Not if we bring more immigrants into this country. We hope that a great many of them will apply for citizenship.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister withdraw "forever"?


Colin William George Gibson: I will say indefinitely.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are the temporary employees all appointed through the civil service commission?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, all of them.


Alan Cockeram: What percentage of them are returned men?


Colin William George Gibson: A good many of them are, of course, female clerks.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said a while ago that a Canadian woman who marries an alien does not lose her Canadian citizenship. How long has that been the case? I think there must have been an amendment to the Citizenship Act.


Colin William George Gibson: Since the new Citizenship Act came into operation on January 1, 1947.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have in my riding a Canadian woman who has lived in Canada all her life. She married an alien and was told that she would have to become naturalized herself to regain her Canadian citizenship.


Colin William George Gibson: If she married before January 1, 1947, she would have lost her Canadian citizenship and would have to apply again.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Could not an amendment be made to the act to make its application retroactive, so that people who are in the position of this woman would not have to go through the whole process of getting citizenship papers?


Colin William George Gibson: That proposal has been made. I did not intend to bring in any amendments to the Citizenship Act this session. In Great Britain they are making the provision that those who lost their citizenship through marriage prior to their new citizenship act will be granted British citizenship automatically if they wish to have it. If we bring in an amendment to our Citizenship Act next session consideration will be given to bringing in a similar amendment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: All it needs is a slight amendment to the act. These people are in the position now, and they have to remain that way for another year or so. It is quite important that the amendment should be made. I do not think it would be a serious matter to have it fixed up.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to say a word on this particular vote. I fail to see why we should have in the estimates two items dealing with registration of citizenship and the citizenship branch. The county court judges have handled this very well since confederation. I fail to see why the government has gone into all this brass-band way of introducing citizenship, and other things. I fail to see any sign of retrenchment in the estimates which the taxpayers back in the constituencies are expecting. Years ago the civil estimates consisted of several million dollars; now they are two billion dollars. How are we to pay for it? The result of this policy was shown in the elections in Ontario the other day. I would far rather see the old system in effect. A great many people do not want to attend these functions where they have orchestras, banquets and all that kind of thing. In my opinion it is unnecessary to become a citizen in that way.
My second point is this. Everybody is desirous of getting away by the end of next week, or by the 25th at the latest. If the government proposes any change in the elections act I think it will be invalid. It is against the constitution to do that without consulting the provinces, especially to substitute proportional voting. On the ballot there will be a list of seven names, and you start crossing them off. I would cross them all off. I would not like to vote for any one of the seven. You start off with first place to one, second place to another, and all that kind of thing.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Supply-Secretary oj State


Thomas Langton Church: That is all I have to say about the minister's estimates. I will tell the government that if they want to close up by the time they have proposed they had better drop some of this legislation.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member for St. Paul's asked why it was not considered advisable to bring in that amende ment at once. Naturalization laws have been similar throughout the commonwealth, and I think it is desirable to keep them that way so far as possible. A change has not yet been made in Great Britain. I do not know whether it has yet been made in any of the other dominions; I understand not. Consequently we would be well advised to wait and see what they do in Great Britain before we make any change in our existing act.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The example I have in mind is that of a woman who married a man before 1947. In the meantime the man became a Canadian citizen. She is still an alien. She was a Canadian before she married.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask the minister a question with reference to the statement he made a few minutes ago, in which he pointed out that when a Canadian woman marries a foreigner she does not lose her Canadian citizenship. That would mean, I take it, subject to the laws of other countries, that she may be a citizen of Canada and of another country as well.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As a matter of interest, could that be any embarrassment? Are there any cases where double citizenship has been created?


Colin William George Gibson: If the woman wants to adopt the citizenship of her husband or his nationality she can, of course, renounce her Canadian citizenship. She has the right to do that if she .wishes. If she wishes to retain her Canadian citizenship she is entitled to do so. There are numerous countries in which there is dual nationality. While it does cause embarrassment on occasions, yet we feel that when a woman gets married she should be permitted to retain her citizenship if she wishes to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If we ever have military conscription for women it would be awkward if they were conscripted for two armies.


Alan Cockeram: We examine these
estimates with the idea of trying to save some money for the taxpayers of this country.
[The Chairman.]
I am wondering why items 429 and 434 could not be combined and a general saving made, because in both of these items there are excessive sums for temporary assistance. They both have printing and stationery, and so on. If our object is to try to cut down expenses there should be some amalgamation of departments of government so that this money could be saved.


Colin William George Gibson: That suggestion is prompted only by the fact that the two names are somewhat the same. The work of the two divisions is entirely separate. The citizenship branch is the one in charge of looking after the people who come to this country, assisting them to become good Canadians. For example, we know the communists are hard at work in this country trying to bring pressure to bear on newcomers to Canada. In the- past we have not had any organization to train our people to be good citizens. Education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces; consequently there is some difficulty in working out programs for the benefit of those new arrivals in Canada. We now have a Canadian citizenship council which is endeavouring to co-ordinate the work of the provinces, of the dominion, and of the welfare organizations throughout this country. The citizenship branch works with the council by keeping in touch with the various ethnic groups in this country. It is having a marked effect, and is able to provide literature to assist newcomers to this country to understand what it means to be a Canadian citizen, and what obligations as well as responsibilities they undertake.


Alan Cockeram: What I have in mind is this. The two departments are handling practically the same thing, so far as I can see. The minister says there is some difference. The minister said that 25,000 naturalization papers were issued last year. The other day he said that 15,000 citizenship certificates had been issued. If these two branches were amalgamated the money saved could be spent on education of newcomers to this country. It seems to me that is where we should spend the money, so that the newcomers may be absorbed into the country as we would like them to be. There is no excuse for having two separate departments dealing with the one subject.


Mr. REID:: When the new Citizenship Act was passed, and while it was being discussed in the house, we were informed that all those persons, especially those from the old country who had been in Canada for five or more years prior to the time the act came into force, would be Canadian citizens. I remem-

Supply-Secretary oj State
ber asking the question whether that citizenship would be recognized by the United States. Instances have been brought to my attention where residents of this country for many long years before the Citizenship - Act was passed have had difficulties with United States authorities when they were asked their nationality. When they said they were Canadians the United States authorities asked in what country they were born. Some said England; some said Scotland and some said Ireland. It was drawn to my attention that in one or two instances the United States authorities would not accept the statements made by these persons that they were Canadian citizens, although they had lived here for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. My question to the minister is this. Will the United States authorities recognize to the fullest extent our new Citizenship Act, without those who are challenged producing papers?


Colin William George Gibson: We may say that the United States authorities may recognize that a person going into that country is a Canadian citizen, but for the person entering the country in some cases that unfortunately is not the criterion which is adopted in the United States. The criterion they adopt is where he was born, irrespective of the country to which he happens to belong at the present time, and there is nothing in our law that can make the United States adopt any other attitude.


Thomas Reid: Would that embarrassing situation be obviated were each one to obtain a certificate? Would that certificate be recognized ?	.


Colin William George Gibson: It would not have any effect.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A foreign-born woman coming to Canada marries a Canadian citizen. After she is here for a year she can make application for citizenship, and three months afterwards she becomes a Canadian citizen?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a foreign-born woman. Suppose a British subject comes to Canada and marries a Canadian citizen. Does she get citizenship papers sooner?


Colin William George Gibson: They get it in the same way.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It takes fifteen months for them anyway.


Colin William George Gibson: It takes a year and whatever length of time the court takes after that. The minimum is a year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It does not matter whether she is a British subject or foreign born?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In neither case do they need to file intention to make application?
Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West); That is right.


William Alexander McMaster: As I recall it, when the Citizenship Act was brought into force, the then secretary of state went around and did a lot of work in the way of instructing newcomers to Canada. I wonder, since he has given up the position, how many temporary employees have been taken on to do the work he did before.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The then Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) did that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said that no change would be made in the act to take care of the situation I mentioned, for the reason that it was desirable to have the law uniform in the commonwealth. Can he give me any particular reason why the situation I have indicated is not different in Canada from that in any other member of the commonwealth? His reasoning does not appeal to me.


Colin William George Gibson: The act has been in operation for only slightly over a year. It was realized when it was introduced that it would be necessary to make amendments, but I did not consider it advisable to bring in piecemeal amendments until we had an opportunity to find out how it has been working. It is not intended to amend the act this session.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is another point. Some of these people who married aliens in days gone by did not know they would lose their Canadian citizenship and they are faced with that situation. It is a pity that something cannot be done about it. The minister's reasoning with reference to other members of the commonwealth does not appeal to me. I do not see why something could not be done in this direction.


Mr. HLYNKA:: It is usual for members of parliament and, I presume, for other persons to complain when something goes wrong in any department, but when everything goes well and officials deserve credit I believe we are all inclined to overlook the good points about these men and we refrain from saying anything in praise of them.
I wish to take this opportunity, therefore, to mention something favourable. I deal a lot with the Canadian citizenship registration
Supply-Secretary oj State

branch and also with the Canadian citizenship branch, and I may say that the heads of both these branches are doing excellent work for Canada, in the interests of this nation. I would first mention Mr. J. E. Duggan, head of the citizenship registration branch, who is efficient, well-informed and courteous and who is doing a splendid job in his position. His officials and staff are doing likewise.
The head of the citizenship branch, which has to do with education, preparing our newcomers and other persons for citizenship, is Mr. Frank Foulds, about whom I should also like to say a word. In what I say about him I associate his staff. These men and women are really doing a very good job, also in the interests of Canada, and I congratulate the minister and his predecessor, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, on having organized this department on the basis on which it now functions.
The only criticism I have to offer is that the government has not seen fit to put up a building in which these offices would be located. It seems to me that we have reached the time that we must find better quarters for these important branches. These persons are working in cubbyholes, and that is not good enough. I leave that thought with the government, in the hope that they will get busy as soon as possible and erect proper buildings so as to enable these men and women in the two branches I have mentioned to do their work under the best conditions.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Last January there was an interesting conference in Montreal at which the Secretary of State was present. It was called by the Canadian citizenship council in collaboration with the Canadian association for adult education, and in that conference participated not only government officials but representatives of voluntary organizations who are interested in the problem of immigrants and prospective new citizens. There were also present representatives of labour organizations and industry. I will not repeat the excellent expressions of opinion we heard there, because the minister himself was present and gave a fine address at a dinner we had, and he is therefore familiar with the situation.
I should like to find out to what extent the recommendations made by the conference have been carried into effect up to this day. I have a copy of the report, as no doubt the minister has, setting out certain recommendations arrived at by the conference, which recommendations were originally suggested by various sections of the conference in panels. In connection with the allocation of responsibility, the committee which had to do with that subject suggested that the conference be called

at the earliest possible day, on the initiative of the federal government and in collaboration with the provincial and municipal authorities, in order to sift over and allocate responsibility for the various services required by new arrivals in this country.
There are certain difficulties to be ironed out, for example hospitalization in some cases, needy widows' allowances, and various other services which ordinarily may fall within the jurisdiction of the province or the municipality. Because immigrants coming to this country are under the jurisdiction of the federal government in the first instance, some of the provinces and municipalities feel that this government should assume some of the initial responsibility, at least, for these services, until these people become fully resident in this country.
Another recommendation passed by this conference, I think unanimously, was in connection with the family allowance. I realize that the actual administration of the family allowance comes under another department; but, since the recommendation was made by this conference, I am sure the minister will have some representations to make-or he may have made them-to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Family Allowances Act provides, for example, that a person must live in this country for three years before becoming eligible. This conference pointed out that a certain amount of hardship results from this requirement. This is the argument of the committee which dealt with that matter, if I may put it on the record:
Family allowances are not paid to newcomers in Canada until they have resided in the country for three years. The new arrival is operating with additional handicaps at best. It seemed to the group unfortunate that the children of newcomers should suffer the further handicap of being denied the benefits family allowances could give them, particularly in view of the fact that normally their parents would be earning their lowest income at the beginning of their residence in Canada. The greatest need for family allowances is precisely during the period after arrival. It was distinctly unfortunate that these children should receive this additional handicap for three years.
Later on, a recommendation was made in definite words, to this effect:
That the Department of Health and Welfare be asked to modify the three-year resident provisions of the Family Allowances Act and its regulations so that the children of new arrivals to Canada will receive the benefits before three years.
A couple of weeks ago I happened to be in the Okanagan valley, where I met a gentleman who had just arrived from South Africa.

Supply-Secretary oj State
He had brought with him his wife and six children, and told me it cost him more than $3,000 to make the trip. He was greatly disappointed to find that, in spite of being a British subject and in spite of having given up certain services in his own country, his family were not eligible for the family allowance in this country, and he felt something should be done about the matter. That may be just one case, but probably it could be multiplied by many thousands.
I am not going to pursue this point further, because I realize that the administration of that act comes under another department. But this conference, which was quite representative, passed a recommendation asking this department to request the Department of National Health and Welfare to make a change at some time in the near future, and I hope the minister will take that into consideration.
I want now to say just a word about some of the other work done at this conference, which I thought was of great importance and of a very high character. Recommendations were made in connection with naturalization and the pre-naturalization education that should be given newcomers to this country. I hope the department is taking full advantage of the views expressed at this conference and the excellent recommendations made; because, as one who, in the past, has taken some part in the education of new immigrants to this country, I can say to the minister that many of the handicaps I experienced at that time would be overcome if the recommendations of this conference were accepted by the citizenship branch, and adequate financial provision were made to carry through a program of education.
I also want to add a word to what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, with respect to the citizenship council and the citizenship branch. I have in my hand a number of pamphlets published by various agencies, all of which are available either from the Canadian citizenship council, which has its headquarters here in Ottawa at 166 Marlborough avenue-and I am putting that on record in case someone wants to look it up later-or at the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. For example, I have in my hand one entitled, "Everyman's Guide to Canada's Parliament." It is not a very large publication, but I recommend it to all hon. members, so that we may see ourselves as others see us. It will enable them to get a bird's-eye view of how we are seen in this house. Another one is entitled, "How to become a Canadian citizen," and is published by the Canadian citizenship
branch. It is also an excellent booklet which should be widely distributed and which people should be encouraged to read. I have here another one called, "Our Canadian Government," which is also available through the Canadian citizenship council or the Canadian citizenship branch; and a fourth one entitled "'Citizenship; the Teacher's Problem."
Just here I should like to say that in many of the rural areas of Canada much of the work of providing the elementary or primary education for new arrivals will fall upon the shoulders of rural teachers,. who will have to do that work after their regular duties are finished. That is so, because in those areas they have not the facilities which are provided in larger centres through either voluntary organizations or government branches. So I would urge the minister, in co-operation with the various provincial departments of education, to provide every possible facility and encouragement, in the way of both finances and available material, for these schoolteachers, who do a valuable job in the evenings after their day's work is through, and who are contributing a great deal to the future citizens of our country.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There has been a good deal of discussion concerning the employees of this department. Before asking the question I have in mind, I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that the estimates for his department amount to a total of $1,437,521, of which almost 50 per cent-to be exact I think it is 43 per cent-or 8591,297 is required for temporary assistance. I should like to know from the minister how many of those temporary employees are engaged by the year and how many are just here today and gone tomorrow. I should like to know also how many temporary employees are drawing this amount of money, which accounts for some 43 per cent of the total vote for his department,


Colin William George Gibson: These
employees are all paid by the year, and the actual numbers I can give as we come to each branch. In the printing bureau, for example, many employees are on prevailing rates. Those in the other branches are on salaries set by the civil service commission for the various grades they occupy; that is, they are clerks, grade 1, grade 2, grade 3 and so on. While the employee is temporary, the position is there and it remains temporary only until the civil service commission goes over the establishment and decides how many of the positions should become permanent and how many should remain temporary.
Supply-Secretary oj State


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are they appointed by the civil service commission even if they are temporary?


Colin William George Gibson: All are appointed by the civil service commission.


Alan Cockeram: What is the salary of the highest paid official on the temporary staff, and how long has that employee been with the department?


Colin William George Gibson: That is difficult to find out on a moment's notice. I can find it out; but the hon. member must realize that we have the estimates here of a great number of divisions; consequently we would have1 to go through each of these to find out which is the highest paid. However, I could get that information and give it to the hon member.


Alan Cockeram: I want to know the salary of the highest paid official in the one class we are now dealing with, and how long he has been a temporary employee in that one branch.


Colin William George Gibson: I have not the exact figure, but it would be about a grade 2, drawing about SI,800.


Alan Cockeram: That is the highest paid official on the temporary staff.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, on the temporary staff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
432. Bureau for translations, $572,145.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the reason for this increase? Is it salaries or extra work?


Colin William George Gibson: This is because of additional translators being required for departments which had not formerly been serviced by the translations bureau. I refer to the Department of External Affairs, the civil service commission, the bureau of statistics and the treasury branch. The translators there required are now being supplied by the translations bureau.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister mean that this branch does it for them?


Colin William George Gibson: We supply translators for them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before thi^ time they had their own, did they?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, on their own staff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Patent and copyright office-
435. Administration division, $42,353.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the 1947 session the patent office received more attention than it had received in many previous sessions, and I suggest it was well that it did. This interest arose in the first instance in connection with a bill the government introduced, proposing certain extensive amendments to the Patent Act. The bill was referred to the committee on banking and commerce; and that committee, seized of the importance of studying the conditions in the patent office, recommended to the house that it should be empowered to inquire into the administration of the patent office in regal'd/ to staff, office space, equipment and the like, and to report to the house in relation thereto. That report was submitted to the house on March 4, 1947, and was adopted the same day.
An extensive study of conditions in the patent office was carried out by the committee on banking and commerce. The facilities available to the patent commissioner and his staff were studied at first hand by a subcommittee of the committee on banking and commerce, with the result that an extensive report covering the studies of the banking and commerce committee and its subcommittee was tabled in the house on July 15, 1947. No motion was made for the adoption of the report. The committee will recall that that was only two days before prorogation. Although not adopted by the house, the report nevertheless has behind it the full authority of the committee on banking and commerce, following an intensive study.
The first fact that should be remembered in any approach to the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the staff and facilities of the patent office is this, that the patent office is a money-maker for the government. It should not be thought that this office is a bill of expense to the taxpayer. While the committee is called upon to vote certain appropriations for the patent office, nevertheless over a long period of years the fees earned through that office have considerably exceeded government expenditures in respect thereto.
In the banking and commerce committee a year ago the figures for the ten years from 1936 to 1946 were tabled. Those figures are to be found at page 13 of the proceedings of the committee for 1947. I shall not trouble the committee by going into the figures in detail, but I shall place on record the aggregate results of those ten years of operation.
The expenditures in connection with the administration of the patent office in that ten-year period aggregated $2,048,000 in round

Supply-Secretary oj State
figures, whereas the fees earned through the patent office aggregated $3,525,000. Thus in the ten-year period I have mentioned the patent office earned for the government a net revenue of $1,500,000. The sum of $3,525,000 received in the ten-year period, together with the additional sums paid in fees in the two and a half years since, were paid by persons doing business with that office, who, in return for the payment of fees, are entitled to expect prompt and efficient service.
I wish to make it as clear as I possibly can, here and now, that I believe the commissioner of patents and his staff are rendering as efficient service as it is possible for them to render under present conditions. I believe the commissioner of patents has rendered great service, and is an able official; and I am sorry that on him has fallen the brunt of the problem of functioning or trying to make his office function under great difficulties and handicaps. These are handicaps, not only of inadequate space, but also of inadequate staff. One of the reasons the staff is inadequate is that the space is inadequate, and there has not been space enough to accommodate a staff adequate to meet the needs of the office.
The committee's report is found in the Journals of the Home for the 1947 session, at pages 910 to 915, and that report demonstrates the situation clearly. It sets out a condition which, in my opinion, cannot be permitted to continue. In brief, at that time the patent office was three years in arrears with its work. The backlog of applications uncompleted was over 31,000, which represents between two and a half and three years work of the patent Office. At that time the office could not keep abreast of current work. The situation in regard to staff was serious, because salaries paid at the prevailing scale were inadequate to attract personnel having the necessary technical qualifications. The office of the commissioner of patents had suffered a serious and substantial loss of personnel during the war, particularly technical personnel. I need not tell the committee that personnel of that kind is difficult to obtain in times like these. When private industry is offering substantially greater rewards to personnel possessed of the qualifications of which a patent examiner must be possessed, it is obvious that the patent office cannot, under present circumstances, expect to retain its personnel, let alone recruit additional necessary staff, unless it is prepared to offer adequate remuneration for the purpose.
After a study of the situation, it was the view of the banking and commerce committee that the salary scale obtaining at the patent office was quite inadequate to attract the additional personnel required. Some headway has been made, because the commissioner was able to report to the banking and commerce committee a year ago that he had recently been able to recruit some additional personnel, both technical and non-technical, but the situation with respect to adequacy of staff as described to the banking and commerce committee still exists.
The problem of inadequacy of staff was closely related to the problem of inadequate accommodation. The fact of the matter is that, even if the commissioner had been able to enlist the additional technical personnel needed at that time, he would not have had any place in which to put them. It was an extraordinary situation. These trained examiners were working two or three to an office, sometimes quite a small office, under conditions which greatly impeded the efficiency of their operations. Valuable records were stored under conditions which made it very difficult to have access to them. There was a crying need for additional accommodation.
I hope I am a reasonable person. I do not expect the government to create buildings out of thin air. I do not expect them to be able to bring into existence overnight, building accommodation when there is a considerable scarcity of it in Ottawa. Nevertheless the situation that existed a year ago was most serious. The public dealing with the patent office was not receiving the service they should have received. I submit that this problem is entitled to a position of leading priority among the government projects for the post-war period.
Again I emphasize that the office of the commissioner of patents is a money-maker. Canadians and others making application to the patent office are entitled to receive service commensurate with the fees they are paying. It is quite unfair that the government should continue to derive a substantial net profit from the operations of this office and not give the service to which those paying the fees are entitled.
The situation was advanced a stage further by the legislation which parliament enacted at the 1947 session. I think the Secretary of State will be the first to admit that the banking and commerce committee did a most useful service last year in connection with the revision of the Patent Act. The amendments which were introduced in the house and referred to the committee were carefully reviewed. Many changes were made and further amendments in the Patent Act were introduced. I think it is generally conceded that
5058
Supply-Secretary of State

the result was a much more workable Patent Act than was the case before the 1947 legislation came into effect.
But there is one curious result. The increase in fees was enacted by parliament on the assumption that the patent office would be equipped to give improved service. Section 19 of the bill which was adopted last year introduced into the act a new section 17 which had the effect of increasing practically the entire scale of fees. The note to that section of the bill read as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to secure revenue from which to defray expenses involved in the printing of specifications and drawings of patents, as provided for in section 26 of the principal act.
It is a matter of record that at that time there were not in the patent office facilities for the printing of specifications and patents. When compared with the patent office in Washington and patent offices in other countries, that was a serious shortcoming. The committee concerned itself at some length with the printing of specifications and drawings, and in its report to the house it made recommendations with respect thereto.
I think at this stage I might read the three recommendations with which the committee concluded its report, and which are to be found on pages 913 and 914 of the Journals of 1947.
They read as follows:
Staff: Attached to this report is an appendix showing the minimum staff which should be supplied to the patent office, and your sub-committee recommends that this staff should he supplied at the earliest possible date.
The appendix proposed a substantial increase in the number of employees in the patent office. The next recommendation reads:
Office space:	Attached to this report is an
appendix showing the amount of office space, storage space, et cetera, required by the patent office, and your sub-committee recommends that when the government is expanding its building program for the housing of government departments, suitable space both as to size and of fireproof construction, should be made available to the patent office.
I observe here that the reference to the subcommittee is to the subcommittee of the banking and commerce committee. Its report was adopted by the banking and commerce committee. The appendix shows that not less than 109,590 square feet of floor space is required. The third recommendation reads:
Printing of patents:	Your sub-committee
recommends that a printing plant by the offset process should be installed in the patent office for the printing of patents, specifications, claims

and drawings, and that the necessary staff be employed to operate the same at the earliest possible date.
May I say that the committee considered the cost of printing specifications and drawings. It had before it a report from the king's printer, indicating that the cost would be substantial. It also had a report indicating that if the offset process were used the cost of printing could be materially reduced; in fact it would be only a fraction of what it would cost if it were done in the office of the king's printer. That was the reason why the recommendation was made that facilities be provided in the patent office for the printing of specifications and drawings by the offset process.
We had, therefore, a situation where parliament was passing a measure to increase the fees to be charged in the patent office for the purpose, as stated in the note to the bill, of securing revenue to defray the expenses involved in the printing of specifications and drawings of patents. I ask the Secretary of State to give the committee a report on the progress that has been made toward providing facilities in the patent office for the printing of specifications and drawings. I am informed that no printing has been done, that increased fees are being charged but that the service for which the increased fees were imposed is not being given.
I ask the minister also to give a full report on the progress, if any, that has been made toward implementing all the recommendations of the committee. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that these recommendations -have not behind them the full weight that would have been attached to them had they been adopted in the house by formal resolution; but I am bold enough to venture this statement, that if the report of that committee had been discussed in the house it would have met iwith the endorsement of the house. I remind hon. members that that report was brought in, unfortunately, only two days before prorogation in July last year. The report had behind it the full weight of the unanimous support of the banking and commerce committee, after a lengthy and intensive investigation.
Some arrangements are, I am told, being made to move some parts of the patent office into the Canadian building. In a matter as serious as this I do urge upon the minister that the committee is entitled to receive from him a very full report. It is not a situation that can reflect credit upon the administration of governmental affairs in this country that the patent office should be permitted to continue for from two and a half to three years in

Supply-Secretary of State
arrears with its work. That is not, I emphasize again, the fault of the commissioner or of the staff. Sometimes one wonders that they do as well as they have done, labouring under their present handicaps. I submit that this is a matter which must receive immediate attention. The situation is so serious that it must receive top-ranking priority among the projects which the government ought to undertake immediately.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my hon. friend spoke as well as lie did on this subject, because I am sure that too many members of the house are ignorant of the situation in the patent office. The patent office in this country has always been the poor child of the government; it has always been treated as though it were something that was not needed, although, as the hon. member pointed out, it has been a revenue-producing branch ever since its inception. It is high time that more members of the house took an interest in the patent office.
In the United States the patent office is not a revenue-producing branch. It is run as a service to encourage inventors to invent and produce for the benefit of the public. But in this country we have never encouraged inventors by the service we have given them in the patent office.
The staff of the patent office is very good. We have a very good commissioner, very good examiners, and a devoted clerical staff. But we have too few of them, and the staff is underpaid. I had hoped, after last year's report by the banking and commerce committee, that there would have been a substantial revision upward in the salaries of the technical men in the patent office and also a revision upward of the salaries of the clerical staff. Mind you, it is not ordinary work that some of the clerical staff do in the patent office, but there are more grade 1 and grade 2 clerks who have been around there for twenty years as grade 1 or grade 2 than there are in any other department of the government. They have been overlooked altogether. That is not the fault of the commissioner of patents. It is rather the fault of the heads of the department. I believe that the cabinet ministers who have been in charge of it from time to time have thought that, since it was a good revenue-producing branch, it should be left as such. I suggest that we take a little more serious view. The staff is too small. I have been dealing with patents since I was eighteen years of age, and it has always been the same old story in the patent office. Everything is always a couple of years behind, and the
result is that as patent solicitors we get complaints from our clients who think that we have taken their money and are not doing anything to help them, that we are robbing them, because they do not hear from us for eight or nine months.
The staff of the patent office do their best. If a case is exceptional we will get a special order; but we cannot ask that all our cases be considered as special cases, and therefore the impression is given to the United States public, who are the greatest contributors to the patent office, and to our Canadian clients, that we are delinquent in our duty. That is not a good situation for solicitors and lawyers to be in. I therefore ask that the staff of the patent office be increased, but you cannot increase the staff if you do not pay reasonable salaries to the technical personnel which forms the patent office. Further, I ask that the clerical staff be enlarged and that, whatever the civil service commission may say, there be a proper classification of the clerical staff and that they be paid salaries which are reasonable for clerks or technical men.
I understand that some space has been found in the Canadian building, but part of the patent office is still in the Langevin block. The most important part of the patent office is the search room and the library. We should have a proper search room and a proper library immediately, because that is the very life of the patent office. That is where the public must search to find out whether an invention is new. The records are in the library and in the search room. At present all that is in one room, in cramped quarters, with no facilities for solicitors to sit down and study. As a result, the government is losing revenue. It follows, of course, that when we have printed records of all the patents already issued, searches can be made much more easily, but I understand that we cannot have printed patents within one year. Indeed, I am sure that it will take another year or two before a start is made on the printing of patents.
I spoke to the commissioner some time ago, and I understand that the printing bureau is now in a position to print patents at a cost which would compare with that suggested by the banking and commerce committee. It is true that the recommendation made last year by the banking and commerce committee was made with a view to offsetting the cost of printing patents; but I must say that the increase was not very substantial, and it does not compare at all with the fees which are being charged in other countries. As a matter of fact I consider that the fees are still too
5060
Supply-Secretary of State

low and it is working a hardship on this country, because two-thirds of the fees which come into the patent office come from the United States.
There is another small matter which I think should be rectified. When we file an application for a patent in the United States of America we have to take our affidavits to the United States consul here. The Secretary of State should make representations to the patent office in Washington, so that it should not be necessary for Canadians to take an affidavit before a notary public in this country to have it authenticated by the United States consul. We have never asked for that from United States citizens. I do not think Canadians should be put to that extra cost when filing an application for a patent in the United States.
I hope that the Secretary of State, who I know has progressive ideas on this matter, will see to it that sufficient space is secured in the Canadian building, if that is to be the building to house the patent office. By "sufficient" I mean ample. I hope he will remember my remarks about the search room and the library. If we had more facilities to search and study patents we would have more revenue. More people would come here to find out about our patents; they would secure copies of patents, and they would file applications. If we had more service to give we would find that a great number of United States patents which are not filed in this country would be filed, because people would expect that they could exploit their patents within a reasonable time. At the present time, many inventors are discouraged because they know they cannot get a patent for perhaps two or three years, and in that time the patent would be of no use to them.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have sat here year after year listening to criticism being levelled at the patent office and the commissioner of patents. He has been criticized; the division has been criticized severely for long delays in the issuance of patents, and that sort of thing. I wish to say right now that, while I am not an authority-I am not a patent attorney-there are more delays created in the offices of the legal profession and in the offices of patent attorneys in Canada than there are in the office of the commissioner of patents.


Jean-Thomas Richard: On a point of privilege, I hope the Iron, member does not refer to me.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a direct question in connection with the matter of accommodation for the patent office? As I

understand the present situation, the patent office is in two buildings; part of it is in the Langevin block and part of it in the Canadian building. The situation is almost as intolerable from the standpoint of getting business done as it was before. There is something behind the scenes somewhere which is stopping the patent office from getting into the Canadian building. We had better bring that out in the open. I understand that there is another department of government there that will not get out. If that is so, we ought to know about it. There ought to be some liaison, or some pressure brought to bear on the department and the cabinet to see that that department does get out, because we cannot allow this intolerable situation to continue, as I see it, with one part of the department in one building and the other part in another. The minister had better bring this thing out in the open and tell us exactly what the situation is, and who is preventing the patent office from getting into its proper quarters.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member for Peel speaks as if there were some secret or hidden mystery about this patent office. There is nothing that I am ashamed to mention.
I want to answer what the hon. member for Eglinton had to say in regard to the work of the office. As bon. members know, at one time, before the new plans were made, the patent office was spread around in about six different buildings in Ottawa. I am glad to say that we were able to get accommodation in the Canadian building. The first step that we took was to bring in all the outlying branches of the patent office from the various buildings into the Canadian building. We were not able to get the whole Canadian building at once. We have now got a good part of it, but two floors in the Canadian building are occupied by the wartime prices and trade board, and one floor by the succession duties branch of the Department of National Revenue. These have not yet been vacated. It is expected that we shall have the whole building, the part that has been allotted to us, within the next few months.
The printing of patents was authorized. A question arose as to whether the patent office itself should undertake that work. After some careful consideration of the matter, we worked out an agreement between the patent office and the printing bureau, under which the printing bureau will do the work at the patent office. That is, the printing bureau, which has experienced men, and has knowledge of the machinery required, is purchasing the necessary equipment which will be installed in the

Supply-Secretary oj State
Canadian building in the patent office; but the actual printing work will be done by contract with the printing bureau on the premises of the patent office.
There has been some increase in staff; but, as the hon. member for Eglinton said, it is not easy to get the qualified men, and we still have some vacancies for examiners, which is, of course, a technical position. It is not easy to fill.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has not yet told us what is the hold-up in the Canadian building. I am anxious to know what the obstacle is and who is there that we cannot get out.


Colin William George Gibson: I am afraid my hon. friend was talking to somebody else when I mentioned it. I said that at the present time the wartime prices and trade board are still in the building. It is expected that they shall be out very shortly.


Gordon Graydon: I understood that this was to be done months ago. Why is the wartime prices and trade board there? Has that board any special priority in the building when the patent office is much more important than the board?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not think the national defence library has altogether pulled out. Although they were occupying space on the ground floor, they have started to move. I do not think they have all their books out of that part. Of course, when the other departments moved out of the other parts of the building a certain amount of redecorating and rearrangement of the rooms on the upper floors was necessary, which took some time, to make them suitable for the patent office. They will be very pleasant quarters when they are completed.


Gordon Graydon: When will the entire
patent office be moved to the Canadian building?


Colin William George Gibson: The last report I have received is that the whole move will be completed within the next few months.


Gordon Graydon: In a few months. I am asking these questions with a definite objective in view. I am really concerned about the position of the patent office. From the information I get from many quarters I think it is a scandal to allow this office to be hung up in this way. The minister ought to go to the Minister of Finance or whoever is responsible and clear this thing up and get the wartime prices and trade board out. 'Let us cut all
the red tape that this thing seems to be tied up with. You will never get in there if you do not do that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to put in a word here. We have had two powerful statements tonight from persons who are familiar with this situation. We have had the hon. member for Eglinton recalling to the committee what was done a year ago when the banking and commerce committee reported to the house. That happened almost a year ago. Then we had the hon. member for Ottawa East giving in great detail some of the defects. The minister has given an answer recognizing that there is a situation to deal with. I got no sense from the minister that this was regarded as something which had absolutely top priority and which should be done. I should like to ask the minister this question. As I understand it, it has been said that the work is some two and a half to three years behind. The seriousness of that in several ways has been made clear. It is not merely the inconvenience to those who are putting in applications, not merely the discouragement to inventors who might put in applications, but actually the great loss in business probably to the office because the facilities are not available. Is there some plan by which this will be dealt with? Is there a plan under which these arrears are to be grappled with, so that they will be wiped out within a given time?
The minister says, and indeed it had already been indicated by those who spoke before him, that it is difficult to get men. That is clear. But are steps being taken to meet this difficulty? Are special inducements being offered? Surely this is something that is in a different category'. We have boards and institutions of all kinds, about the value of which we may have great differences of opinion, but here is something on which everyone is agreed. It is generally agreed that the public wishes to have this branch put in the highest state of efficiency. I would ask the minister whether there is now a plan whereby these arrears will be brought down. Is there any plan whereby staff will be got and the necessary steps taken to get them, so that within a reasonable time these arrears will have been wiped off? Nothing short of that is a satisfactory answer to the arraignment, and it is an arraignment to which the committee has listened tonight.


Colin William George Gibson: My hon. friend is not an authority on the patent law, or he would realize that, when reference is made to the fact that patents are in arrears,

Supply-Secretary oj State
that is a standard condition. The length of time they are in arrears is another matter. When applied for, a patent is not issued within a week or within a month. I think the Canadian record at the present time compares quite favourably with the record of other countries in the average length of time it takes to issue a patent. It does not depend entirely on the activity of the patent office. They receive an application and they write back and make certain requisitions, and that goes back to the solicitor who is handling the application. He then calls in the inventor, and perhaps a period of six months goes by before a reply comes into the patent office. That -is dealt with; there has to be a second application. It goes back to the solicitor, and in some cases it is a matter of six years before the patent is obtained, depending on the speed with which applicants apply for patents. Sometimes they do not wish to have a patent issued too early. Having filed their application, they are protected, but they may not want it at once. They may not want time to run against them, and sometimes there is a purposeful delay in answering the questions of the department. Sometimes six months go by without a letter being answered.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The minister will admit that the evidence given last year before the committee was that when the application was filed in the first place it would be acknowledged by the department; but that a matter of eight months would go by before any further step would be taken by the department. Has the situation changed in that regard in the last year? The department was not itself in a position to have the necessary work done by the examiners for a period of eight months. Has that situation changed?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. The situation has improved. We are not in a fully satisfactory position and shall not be until we get into one building, and we want an increased staff. I would not say the work of the patent office is unsatisfactory.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is the minister not seized of the fact, which came out before the committee last year, that one basic necessity in the proper working of the patent office is adequate housing for the whole staff in one building?


Colin William George Gibson: I agree.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Will the minister tell us tonight that within a matter of a few months he will have the office together in one building?


Colin William George Gibson: That is right,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is perfectly right when he says that I am not an expert, but I have listened to two hon. gentlemen who I thought and still think are experts, and when I heard the word "arrears" used I took it in its ordinary sense. The minister says, in effect, that things are not so bad, that there is no real urgency. If that is the spirit of the approach to this question, that there is no real sense of urgency, then I suggest that other persons who are more competent than I am should say whether there is, in fact, such urgency.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am bound to say to the minister that his answer concerning delays in the patent office does not strengthen the position he has taken on this matter. The minister will be the first to recognize that we who have spoken on the question are trying to strengthen his hands in an effort to see that the patent office situation is cleared up. We are trying to help him to obtain accommodation and personnel, and his answer that the situation is satisfactory is entirely inadequate. It is a most incomplete answer to say that there are inevitable delays in dealing with patent matters. Of course there are. It takes time to make due examination of patents. There must be correspondence; there must- be citations, and all that sort of thing. No one expects the patent office to function on applications the day they are received; nevertheless.it is quite inadmissible for the minister to say that the patent office is not working unsatisfactorily at the present time. The commissioner before the committee said, not once but many times, that the public is not receiving from the patent office the service to which it is entitled. Is the minister going to say, after that, that the office is working satisfactorily? I hold that, through no fault of the commissioner and the staff, the office is not working satisfactorily. It is working in a manner far from satisfactory. When we have the irrefutable evidence, taken before the banking and commerce committee last year, that the time lag in dealing with these patents runs from two and a half to three years from the date of receipt, no one may say that the office 'is working satisfactorily.
On the question of accommodation in the Canadian building, may one express the hope that the minister will be firm and insistent in pressing for due accommodation for the needs of the patent office. I had. hoped that we would receive something more favourable from the minister than the statement that in a matter of months the patent office will have completed its move into the Canadian building. "Months" may be a long time. We heard

Supply-Civil Service Commission
the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not so many months ago, tell us that, according to his definition, "months" might mean more than a year. I do not know whether the Secretary of State frames his definition of time with the same degree of elasticity as his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I tell him that if in this case "months" means a year or more this matter will be up again next year and will be pressed with vigour. I make that promise.
Again I say to the minister that we are trying to help in alleviating the problem, for which he is not alone responsible. Those of his predecessors who had the problem under their charge and who did not grapple with it must share the responsibility with him. We recognize that during the war the demands for government space were pressing, and therefore we are trying to be fair about the matter. Nevertheless there is a deplorable situation to be met, and it is not being corrected with the speed at which the government ought to set about redressing it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
50. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $676,220.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question or two with respect to the interesting questionnaire that has been circulated just recently among civil servants. First, may I inquire whether the filling in of this questionnaire is compulsory, and what would happen to a civil servant if he did not fill it in. The newspapers report that some employees have torn them up, all five copies.


Colin William George Gibson: I read about that questionnaire in the newspapers, and made some inquiries about it. It was not issued by the civil service commission, but, I understand, was circulated by two departments among their own staffs. Those departments, I believe, were external affairs and national defence; but it was not issued by the civil service commission and is not being circulated throughout the service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then failure to fill in the form would not involve disciplinary action of any kind, as far as the minister knows?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say. I know nothing about the questionnaire beyond the fact that it was circulated in those departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate that the questionnaire was circulated in two departments over which the minister does not have jurisdiction; but it was circulated to these people as civil servants. We are now dealing with the item in respect of the civil service commission, and it does seem to me that, being responsible for the civil service commission, the minister should be able to give some assurance in reply to my question.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot give any assurance at all, because I do not know anything about the administration of other departments. The civil service commission, whose estimates we are considering here, is just an agency which obtains employees for the various departments of government. Once those employees have been obtained, they come under the jurisdiction of the departments to which they are assigned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But once people have met the requirements of the commission and have been employed permanently, is there any guarantee in connection with that permanency, or is it possible for another department to dispense with the services of an employee for any cause, such as failure to fill in this questionnaire?


Colin William George Gibson: If they were on the strength of the civil service the commission would ordinarily reassign them to some other department.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If the heads of a department consider it is necessary for that department that these questionnaires be filled in, and a member of the civil service takes it upon himself to tear up the questionnaire instead, is that permissible? Has the civil servant such protection as would permit him to tear up a questionnaire which the heads of his department consider necessary, thus permitting him to defy the power of his superiors? I should hope not. I hope no civil servant in Canada gets such protection that he is able to run his department, irrespective of his position in the service.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad I am not working for the hon. member who just took his seat.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I can assure the hon. gentleman that he would never be able to fill the job.


Clarence Gillis: We were not talking about jobs. If you were hiring people, with the attitude you have just shown, they would have very little liberty inside or outside the plant.

Supply-Civil Service Commission


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I could bring five hundred employees who would say you are quite wrong.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think the answer we were given by the Secretary of State is sufficient. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, we are dealing with a questionnaire which the Secretary of State explains was sent out by two departments of the government. Nevertheless these people are civil servants, and were employed in accordance with civil service regulations. I have a copy of the Ottawa Citizen of June 9. On the front page there is this caption, "Questionnaire in CS arouses anger." I do not think any hon. member can take the stand that a department of government has t'he right to expect answers to the type of questions contained in this questionnaire. So that hon. members may have some idea of what they are like, I am going to quote the first sentence of this article:
Civil servants are up in arms today over a "personnel questionnaire" which they are being required to fill out in quintuplicate, giving details of the residence and present employment of their brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins, etc. Perhaps the real joker in the deck, however, is the five lines left-
I think this is the most serious part of it.
-to list the clubs and associations of which a civil servant is a member or past member.
I do not think it is the business of anyone, even the hon. member for Simcoe North, who might employ me, whether I am a member of the Knights of Columbus, the True Blues, the Canadian Legion or anything else. Those are matters within my own rights as a citizen.
I do not think it is the business of the Department of National Revenue, once I have met the requirements of their regulations, to have me to fill in a form and tell them where my brothers, sisters, uncles and all the rest of them are working. I do not think that is any of their business. As long as I perform my duties as a civil servant, I believe the matter ends there.
So, until a satisfactory explanation is given this committee, I believe this item covering the civil service commission should stand. I believe the minister should be in a position to state that no department has the right to interfere with the personal affairs of civil servants. Tonight we have been talking about citizenship, freedom and all that kind of stuff.
I do not believe any department coming under the civil service commission has any right to interfere in any of these matters outside their own organization.

I think this is pretty high-handed on the part of the Department of National Defence, and I. am surprised that a minister like the hon. gentleman who presides over that department should permit this sort of thing to be done. This is bureaucracy in the extreme; it is interference with the rights of a person as a citizen, and I believe the time to stop this kind of thing is now. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If one or two departments of government can get away with it, then it may become the rule in future. Civil servants may become much less free than they are today; and they do not have so much freedom now. There are many freedoms they do not have which I should like to see them have. So I am seriously suggesting that, until we get a more satisfactory explanation of this questionnaire, this item should stand.


Colin William George Gibson: Any question in regard to the questionnaire may be brought up on the estimates of the two departments concerned. The civil service commission has no knowledge of it at all.


Clarence Gillis: Well, we are dealing with the civil service commission now. I believe it should be asked for an explanation, and I think we should get that explanation before we pass these estimates. In my opinion the departments concerned have no business putting out this kind of thing. The civil service commission is the body responsible for the jobs of the people affected by this questionnaire.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, no; not entirely.


Clarence Gillis: Before people are taken on as clerks or anything else in national defence or external affairs, they have to pass the civil' service examinations.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: What are the two departments?


Clarence Gillis: External affairs and national defence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Both secret departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that all those employees, especially if they are permanent, have already been required to take an oath of allegiance?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to that, but my point is that, they having done so and having passed the examinations, these inquiries about their sisters, cousins, aunts and so on certainly border on an infringement upon their freedom, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has pointed out.

Supply-Public Printing and Stationery


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The oath of a Labour-Progressive would not mean anything.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are there any temporary employees in the civil service commission?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes; there are 143 permanents and 117 temporaries.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Temporary employees receive
$668,868?


Colin William George Gibson: That is in the two departments. It is divided into two parts. There are 117 temporary employees in the regular civil service branch, and in demobilization and reconversion there are 295. So that those are both included in the total sum that the hon. member mentioned.


Alan Cockeram: Is the work of the demobilization and reconversion branch going on at the present time, and is it likely to continue ? A large amount was spent last year. Surely that work must be fading into the distance by this time. When will it disappear altogether?


Colin William George Gibson: They will eventually merge into one division. At the present time, however, a survey is being made.


Alan Cockeram: In other words, until the merger is carried out we shall not save money?


Colin William George Gibson: It is making a survey of various departments to find out what their post-war requirements may be, and for that reason they have a larger staff than will be necessary later on.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY

[Stage Direction]
323. Canada Gazette, $83,430.
Alan Cockeram: What is the revenue here? I take it that this is in addition to the revenue brought in from the sale of the Canada Gazette. I meant to ask a similar question in connection with the patent office, but it slipped my mind. How much money do we take in from this source?


Colin William George Gibson: In the last year or two we have had a deficit on the Canada Gazette. It is being printed in two parts. At one time it carried itself, but at the present time there is a deficit of about $7,500.


Alan Cockeram: That is not my question. I did not ask whether there was a deficit. How much came in from the sale of this publication?


Colin William George Gibson: Expenditures were $60,067.19, and the revenue was $52,400.


Alan Cockeram: So that there was a loss?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, of about $7,500.


Alan Cockeram: I suggest that this is one branch which should pay. If there is a loss on the Canada Gazette, then surely those of us who subscribe to it should pay at least the cost of printing it. How many copies are issued?


Colin William George Gibson: A great many free issues are distributed. I do not think those who pay for it should necessarily have to pay the cost of the free distribution.


Alan Cockeram: How many free copies are issued and how many are subscribed for?


Colin William George Gibson: Two
thousand copies are printed, of which 1,200 are distributed free.


Alan Cockeram: To whom are they distributed free? Let us get down to the point as to why this branch cannot be made selfsupporting. That is all I want to know.


Colin William George Gibson: Part II is distributed to all those who receive free copies of the statutes, including the libraries of Canada, members of parliament, judges, legal libraries and the like.


Alan Cockeram: Only 800 copies are paid for?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, but in addition there is the revenue secured from those who put in advertising.


Alan Cockeram: What is the revenue from advertising in the Canada Gazetted


Colin William George Gibson: It is $54,000. The revenue from subscriptions is $18,214 and, from advertising, $34,260.


Alan Cockeram: I just wish to point out that in my opinion those figures are not correct. What is the cost of the Canada Gazette today? It is $3 a year, is it not?


Colin William George Gibson: No; it is S8 a year.


Alan Cockeram: The minister has said the revenue from subscriptions is $18,214. How does that work out? The minister told me a moment ago that only 800 copies were paid for. That is what I am getting at. He said there were 1,200 free and 800 paid for.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand from the king's printer that 2,000 copies of part I are printed; 3,000 copies of part II, and 1,000 copies in French.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5066	COMMONS
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery
825. Distribution of official documents, $68,300.
Alan Cockeram: I should like an explanation of this item, because I think it is in just about the same position. Why does it cost so much, and what are the documents?


Colin William George Gibson: Official documents are distributed to various government offices, to libraries and to members of parliament. For example, the Statutes of Canada are distributed to senators and members of the House of Commons to the extent of 250 copies in English and seventy-nine copies in French. They go to the lieutenant governors of the provinces, government officials in the provinces, police magistrates and provincial libraries. The total distribution is 1,787 in English and 489 in French.


Alan Cockeram: Is that just the official
statutes, or is it everything?


Colin William George Gibson: That is the official list. Government publications are sent
to the same list.


Alan Cockeram: I think this is one place where a saving could be made. Every member of the House of Commons receives copies of the divorce bills, and I think practically ninety-five per cent throw them in their waste-paper baskets without looking at them. A number of official documents are sent to members, which could be cut out if a questionnaire were sent around to find out just what we wanted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the divorce bills, I should like to amend the figure I gave the other night. I pointed out that the divorce bills and proceedings which had come to us this year would make a pile eleven inches high for each member. I multiplied that by the number of members of parliament and senators, and told the house that it would make a pile 312 feet high. Tomorrow morning, when hon. members are walking up the walk, if they will look at the flag on top of the tower they can realize how high the pile would be. One of my French-speaking colleagues in the back row has reminded me that the French-speaking members receive copies in both English and French of both the bills and the proceedings. Therefore the height of the pile would be considerably higher than the flag.
{Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West).]
Seriously, I think something could be done. It would only be a fleabite when compared with the money we have to spend, but surely it would be (worth saving. Some way should be found to do away with the printing of the huge quantities of these things which all of us just throw away.


Frank Exton Lennard: That would apply to a great many other publications issued by the government to all members of parliament. I know we all get from different departments publications which are just thrown away unwrapped into the wastepaper basket. I agree with the hon. member who has suggested that a questionnaire should be sent out, so that we could indicate what publications we desire. A considerable saving could be effected.


Colin William George Gibson: This is a matter that really should be taken up with the committee on printing, because the printing bureau does the actual work and makes the distribution in accordance with the instructions it receives. It does not decide for itself what distribution shall be made. If the committee on printing would give it some latitude, so that members could be asked what they desired, instead of their being supplied automatically with material, possibly a saving could be made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That brings to my mind the thought that the Secretary of State might be the proper person to follow that up and try to get it done. These divorce petitions are the greatest waste of money. They are sent to us by the score each year, and I am sure that each one of us just throws them in the wastepaper basket. They involve a waste of envelopes, time and everything else. If a change in the statute is required, let us have it done. I suggest that the Secretary of State charge himself with trying to have that done.


Colin William George Gibson: I shall be glad to bring that to the attention of the chairman of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members will recall that when we received the 1947 statutes last year a change had been made. The announcement was made that the 1947 statutes would be printed in two volumes, one containing the statutes other than the divorce acts and the other volume containing the divorce acts. We

Supply-Trade and Commerce
were told that if we wanted to get the volume containing the divorce acts, we could get it, but if we did not particularly want it and did not especially apply for it we would not get it. That did not come through the committee; that decision was made at some official level. I would hope that at the same level a decision could be made that at the beginning of the year each member of parliament would get a sample divorce bill and a sample copy of proceedings and evidence. I do not know who would pick them out, but they are still the same, and we could let it go at that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
326. Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $125,000.
Alan Cockeram: This item is in exactly the same position as the last one. I assume that the explanation given by the minister would cover this item as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
HO. Departmental administration, $272,600.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations about this item and take advantage of this occasion to refer in a general way to trade and commerce and to make a request of the minister. Undoubtedly foreign trade has a special significance in our minds this year by reason of events which took place last year and the special measures which had to be taken. I am going to try to make my request in an entirely uncontroversial way, because I am most anxious to put it to the minister in such a way as to get what I think we need, a comprehensive statement of our trade position, not just a few general words.
I want to remind the minister briefly of the events which we both have in mind: the steps which were taken last autumn, including his own speech; the measures which have been passed and, finally, the reference which he made last autumn to the Marshall plan and to the position in which we now find ourselves. What I suggest the minister should give us is up-to-date figures showing the results achieved, first of all, under the exchange conservation bill, with its three aspects, the exclusion aspect, the quota aspect, and the permit aspect; secondly, what he has been
able to do pursuant to his radio address last autumn to promote the increase of exports of Canadian manufactured goods to the United States, and finally, I come to say a word about the Marshall plan.
I quite appreciate what the minister said the other evening, that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for the department to estimate exactly what benefit we shall get under the Marshall plan, although the minister hoped last autumn that he might be able to do that. I appreciate what he said, that the Marshall plan puts United States funds into the hands of European countries which can then use them as they see fit. Therefore I realize it is difficult for the minister to attempt to anticipate just what benefit we shall derive from these moneys put into the hands of these countries.
That brings me again to the question of trade, and I point out to the minister that the whole situation involves our foreign trade position, and that this place and this time is the proper place and time for a comprehensive statement to be given such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is best able to give. May I suggest to the minister that it should not be done in any offhand way in any five or ten minutes. What we should have and are entitled to is a carefully prepared, comprehensive, reasoned and complete statement giving us the best estimate he can give us at the present time, first of all, as to what results have been achieved since last autumn and secondly, as to our expectations based on the best analysis he can make of our foreign trade position and the best analysis he can make of what we may expect in the development of our trade. In other words, he should put us in a position to judge where we stand in our foreign trade 'balance position. I put that to the minister. I am not pretending that it is a small thing. It is quite a big thing. It will need a comprehensive statement, and I hope the minister will give it. I think this is the time and this is the place that it should be given.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Chairman, we spent five hours on this subject the other day but perhaps my hon. friend was more pleasantly engaged. However, if he wants a statement I will give him one, although it will take a little time. I hope he will listen patiently.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

The remarks I have to make refer to the administration of schedule III of the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, which deals with the imports of a specified list of capital goods and production materials.
The dollar value of imports from the United States of capital goods and production materials enumerated in schedule III has been held during the first four months of 1948 at $187 million. This is a level slightly above the first four months of 1947 when the figure was $177 million, but well below both of the
remaining four month periods of 1947, when the same imports amounted to about $20C million in each case. These figures are shown in detail in table I which accompanies this statement. With the permission of the committee, I will put the table on Hansard.


William Henry Golding: Has the minister permission to put the table on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The table is as follows:
Table I
Imports from U.S.A. of Schedule III Tariff Items by Commodity Group*
? (000,000)
Building stone, marble and granite	
Primary iron and steel	
Printing and publishing machinery	
Textile machinery	
Office machinery	
Household machinery	
Industrial machinery and equipment ... Motion picture machinery and equipment
Construction machinery	
Miscellaneous machinery and equipment.
Engines and boilers	
Railway rolling stock and equipment____
Motor vehicles and parts	
Ships	
Aircraft and parts	
Heating and cooking apparatus	
Radio apparatus	
Heavy electrical apparatus	
Light electrical apparatus	
Grand total	
	1947		1948
First four	Second four	Last four	First fourmonths	months	months	monthsJan.-April	May-Aug.	Sept .-Dec.	Jan.-Apr i\[DOT]1	[DOT]2	[DOT]2	[DOT]35-6	6-3	8-9	8-33-3	3-7	4-2	5-65-7	6-1	6-3	6-52-3	2-3	3-3	3-0[DOT]6	[DOT]8	1-0	1-237-3	44-0	43-0	41-0*9	1-1	1-1	[DOT]923-4	25-6	24-8	31-714-3	14-6	14-5	15-16-5	6-6	5-9	9-21-3	1-7	4-0	2-756-8	67-9	67-1	44-4[DOT]9	[DOT]7	1-1	[DOT]74-5	5-4	3-0	3-31-3	1-1	1-4	1-74-4	3-8	3-2	2-93-3	4-0	41	4-54-8	4-5	4-2	3-8177-3	200-4	201-3	186-8
*In many eases these figures cover somewhat more than the items enumerated in schedule III. They are as close an approximation to schedule III as can be made with official import statistics.
Source: Trade of Canada-Imports.
At the end of 1947, when the government sought power to control these items, it is to be remembered that domestic investment had reached a record level and that imports of capital goods from the United States had risen correspondingly. The survey of investment intentions which I tabled in the house had indicated the grand total of new investment in construction, machinery and equipment might continue to rise from the level of $2-4 billion in 1947 to perhaps $2'8 billion in 1948. In comparison with the increase of imports of capital goods which would otherwise have occurred, the control program in this field has already 
achieved substantial United States dollar savings. Prices of machinery and materials have continued to rise in the United States in the meantime, so that in the reducing of the dollar value of these imports, their physical quantities have been reduced still more.
When, schedule III items have been brought under control it has been necessary to consult the industries concerned and to make a careful study of each case. The items have, therefore, been brought under control in groups announced at successive dates. The details of this are-shown in the attached table III.
Item
306 306A 306B 388E 393



Ex 409L Ex 412 Ex 412A Ex 412B Ex 412C Ex 412D Ex 413 Ex 414 Ex 414A       Ex 414C Ex 415 Ex 415B Ex 415C Ex 415D Ex 420 Ex 422 Ex 422A Ex 422B Ex 424 Ex 425 427E Ex 427E Ex 427H Ex 428E Ex 428F   Ex 434A 434B Ex 435 Ex 438 438A 438B 438C 438D 438E Ex 438G 438H   Ex 439B Ex 440

[Stage Direction]
_________________________________Supply-Trade and Commerce_________
Table III
Schedule III-Tariff Items under Control as of June 5, 1948
Date of Control June 5, 1948 June 5, 1948 June 5, 1948 June 5, 1948 April 1, 1948 March 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 April 1, 1948
May 15, 1948
May 15, 1948 May 15, 1948
May 15, 1948
May 15, 1948 May 15, 1948 May 15, 1948 May 15, 1948
May 15, 1948 April 1, 1948 June 5, 1948 June 5, 1948 May 15, 1948
April 1, 1948
March 1, 1948 April 1, 1948
Feb. 2, 1948
May 15, 1948 May 15, 1948
March 1, 1948
June 5, 1948 March 1, 1948 June 5, 1948
June 5, 1948 Nov. 18, 1947 March 1, 1948 March 1, 1948 March 1, 1948 March 1, 1948 April 1, 1948 June 5^1948 June 5, 1948 Nov. 18, 1947 April 1, 1948 June 5, 1948
Brief description
Marble, granite, building stone, rough Marble, granite, building stone, sawn Building stone, sawn
Building stone, sawn	[DOT]
Iron or steel side or centre sill sections for railway cars Rough steel tires for railway vehicles Traction ditching machines and production parts Newspaper presses and production parts Printing and publishing machinery and production parts Flat bed cylinder printing presses and production parts Type casting awl type setting machines and production parts Offset presses, lithographic presses, printing presses and production parts
Textile machinery and production parts Typewriter production parts
Production parts for dictating, transcribing, cylinder shaving machines
Bookkeeping, calculating, invoicing machines and production parts.
Production parts for adding machines Vacuum cleaners and production parts Production parts for domestic washing machines Production parts for domestic clothes wringers Industrial sewing machines; production parts for all sewing *machines
Leather -working machinery and production parts Street or road rollers and production parts Road machinery and production parts
Trench amd ditch excavating machines and production parts Fire engines, fire extinguishing machines and production parts, other than chassis parts
Lawn mowers designed for use with motive power and production parts
Automatic machines for making and packaging cigarettes Machines for manufacture of veneers and plywoods and production parts
Motion picture projectors for use with film li inch or over and electrical theatre equipment Diesel and semi-diesel engines and production parts Air-cooled internal combustion engines less than 1J h.p. and production parts
Locomotives for use on railways, including tops, chassis, wheels and bodies
Motor-rail cars, chassis and production parts Steel wheels for railway rolling stock
Locomotive and railway motor cars for mining, metallurgical or saw mill operations and production parts. Diesel Switching locomotives
Railway cars, n.o.p. and production parts
Automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor cycles, side oars and production parts Annular ball bearings and parts Motor vehicle parts and accessories
Cars, n.o.p., trucks, road or railway scrapers
Vessels, dredges, scows and yachts, except pleasure boats
Supply-Trade and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
Table III-Concluded
Schedule III-Tariff Items under Control as of June 5, 1948
Item	Date of Control	Brief descriptionEx 440A	June	5,	1948	Vessels, dredges, scows and yachts, except pleasure boatsEx 443	June	5,	1948	Production parts for cooking -and heating apparatusEx 443A	June	5,	1948	Ovens, for use in commercial bakeries and production partsEx 445	June	5,	1948	Production parts for electric light fixtures and appliancesEx 445D	May	15,	1948	Production parts for electric wireless or r-ajdio apparatusEx 4451	June	5,	1948	Production parts for electric sad ironsEx 445J	J une	5,	1948	Production parts for electric dry shaving machinesEx 445K	June	5,	1948	Electric apparatus, n.o.p. and production partsEx 4450	May	15,	1948	Radio production partsEx 445P	J une	5,	1948	Radio tube production partsEx 445Q	June	5,	1948	Radio tube production partsEx 446	March 1	, 1948	Electric steam turbo generator sets and production parts447A	April	1,	1948	Sand cast rolls and chilled east -rolls for paper manufacture447B	April	1,	1948	Forged steel rolls459	April	1,	1948	Production materials and production parts for street or road rollers461	March 1,	, 1948	Safes, -including doors, scales, balances, weighing beamsEx 461A	May	15,	1948	Automatic scales, weighing machines and production parts
It should be noted that the Minister of Finance was initially responsible for some of these items. By June 5, over 72 per cent of the items in schedule III had been brought under control, and these items accounted for about 49 per cent of all the imports in schedule III in 1947.
Because a number of these items have recently been controlled, import statistics available to date do not as yet fully reflect
the operation of the controls which have been applied. These should result in larger savings of United States dollars during the remainder of the year. Some results are, however, already to be noted. For example, imports from the United States in March and April of the current year were in each case lower than for the same months of 1947 for schedule III items. Table II shows such import statistics as have become available on items brought under control. Table II follows:
Table II
Monthly Imports From U.S.A. of Schedule III Tariff Items by Date of Commencement of Control, as of April, 1948*
[Stage Direction]
Date of control	1947	1948	October	November	December	January	February	March	AprilNovember 18, 1947 (1)	8.0	6.8	i.i	i.i	0.4	1.4	1.2February 2, 1948 (2)	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.03	BP 0.03March 1, 1948 (3)	11.3	9.6	9.7	10.6	9.4	9.3	9.7April 1, 1948 (4)	1.5	1.5	1.5	2.1	1.8	1.7	2.2Total all controlled tariff items	20.9	18.1	12.4	13.9	11.8	12.43	13.13
Source: Trade of Canada, Imports.
(1)	Tariff items 438A and 439B.
(2)	Tariff items 427H.
(3)	Tariff items 393, 427E, 434, 434B, 438B, 438C, 438D, 438E, 446 and 461.
(4)	Tariff items 388E, 409L, 412, 412A, 412B, 412C, 412D, 422, 425, 427F, 438G, 439B, 447A, 447B, 459.
* In many cases these figures cover somewhat more than the items enumerated in schedule III. They are as close an approximation to schedule III as can be made with official import statistics.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
It is clear from these figures that the imposition of controls has resulted in a diminution of imports and that the greatest saving to date has been in the case of automotive vehicle tariff items 438a and 439b, which were made effective on November 18, 1947. It should further be borne in mind that imports have been admitted in many cases in schedule III where contracts were made prior to November 18, 1947. It is clear that these cases will become of less importance as time goes on although it was recognized in advance that there would be a large number of them at the beginning of the program.
Methods of administration have been devised which take account of the various problems which arise in the import of schedule III items. Wherever possible, import quotas have been applied, or dollar allotments as they are called. In most cases these have followed the general pattern of the formula applied to imports of the automobile industry which I explained in this house at an earlier date. These dollar allotments have been found most suitable in controlling the imports of parts for production use enumerated in schedule III.
In other cases not subject to these dollar allotments, applications are received for import permits on an individual basis. Until the end of May a total of $21-5 million of import authorizations have been granted in this way, $14 million for imports from the United States and S7-5 million for imports from other countries. This has involved thousands of individual applications, each of which had to be carefully screened.
A third system has been evolved to deal with anyone engaged in a project such as the construction of an industrial plant. Applications may be made for blanket approval of all the imports necessary for the particular project. Project approvals which are issued in these circumstances are, in effect, an assurance that individual shipment permits will be issued as they are needed. Up to the end of May, a total of 232 project applications had been approved. A large proportion of these cover the expansion of industries which will either increase exports or diminish our dependence on imports on a sound economic basis. About forty project applications have been approved for the replacement of obsolete and uneconomical equipment. A number of these latter were in the textile industry. Seventeen of these project permits deal with public service projects, of which by far the most important is the hydro-electric power development now taking place throughout Ontario.
The total value of materials still required for these 232 projects amounts to some $495
million, $73 million of which is material covered by schedule III to be imported from the United States during 1948 and subsequent years. Almost every Canadian industry of any size has been affected by this project authorization system. Apart from public utilities in Ontario, the industries which account for the largest expenditures in the above total are pulp and paper, textiles, petroleum, chemicals and processed foods and beverages.
Schedule III was not designed to place drastic limitations on industry. Quite the reverse; it was intended to promote industrial growth in the most constructive possible way. This program is being developed every day. Imports of capital goods were in danger of going beyond what we could afford to spend in United States dollars, but drastic curtailment would have been undesirable. It would have impeded industry's plans and would have caused unemployment and attendant difficulties in many parts of the country. Hasty or ill-considered action might well have altered our course from our present booming prosperity to the reverse, recession and falling incomes. This has been avoided. New industries are being established in Canada all the time to continue the development and further integration of our national economy. Thus the program is not merely to save dollars in the short run, but also to assist industry as a whole to spend our scarce United States dollars where they will do the most good for our future development. The co-operation on the part of industry has been excellent throughout, and there has been evidence of widespread public desire to assist in solving the dollar exchange problem.
Imports of steel provide a good illustration of efforts made to obtain adequate supplies of an important basic material for Canadian industry. We are not anxious to cut down our steel; on the contrary we are anxious to import as much as we can get, consistent with the allocation of steel which must be made in the United States to many other important uses. In the first quarter of 1948, tonnage of structural steel imports subject to control was about fifty-seven per cent higher than in the first quarter of 1947, although about sixteen per cent below the fourth quarter of 1947.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister the total tons?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the tonnage, no; I can look it up for the hon. member. Total imports of all mill forms show a similar trend in the same periods.
Tariff item 438a, motor vehicles, was put under control on November 18, 1947. I estimated in the house in February that we would
Supply-Trade and Commerce

effect a total saving, on this tariff item alone, of about 355,000,000 in 1948. Additional savings on automotive parts were estimated to bring the total saving on automobile imports up to $70,000,000 or $75,000,000 in 1948. It looks now as if savings of this magnitude will be attained. Nearly all the reduction in imports thus far is attributable to diminished imports of complete vehicles from the United States. The import formula for the automobile industry has permitted the continued imports of parts at a high level. Along with this, production in the Canadian automobile industry bids fair to be comparable with the high levels of last year. In the first quarter of 1948, roughly 60,000 vehicles were produced. Types of vehicles will be manufactured in Canada which were previously imported from the United States, and at least one manufacturer has been hastening plans for the Canadian production of his car which was previously imported. Another manufacturer is moving into the production of motor coaches in Canada. A number of Canadian industries have expanded the manufacture of automobile parts and sub-assemblies which were previously imported. They include new types of wheels, non-vacuum fuel pumps, hub, drum and transmission assemblies and others.
The industrial expansion which we are encouraging can best be illustrated by referring to a few of the industries for which imports of machinery and equipment have been authorized.
Among our largest imports last year were textile fabrics, that is, cottons, rayons and woollens. These amounted to about S180 million and were largely imported from the United States. Well over one-half of the imports consisted of cotton fabrics. As hon. members know, it has been necessary to make large reductions in our imports of cottons and rayons from the United States and, especially in the case of cotton fabrics, import restrictions will sharply reduce the supply available for the domestic market. At present there are a number of large expansion and modernization projects under way in all branches of the textile industry that will contribute substantially to a reduction of our imports of these materials as well as of yarns and fibres, and will increase efficiency in the industry. These projects will not only aid in our immediate dollar saving program and alleviate material shortages but also contribute to the improvement of our long-term dollar position. In these respects the expansion of our cotton industry will be most important. I can add, too, that the completion of a rayon plant now under way will make it less necessary to import rayon fibres and yarns.

In the pulp and paper industry there is a large expansion program under way to increase our production of a number of products, particularly for export to the United States. Some of these projects will process pulp previously exported; others will convert our paper into containers and other paper products now being imported. In the past, Canada has imported a substantial amount of copper and brass products. In this industry, too, a large expansion project now under way should materially reduce our dependence on imports. The same is true of our asbestos industry. Heretofore, a large proportion of our asbestos has been exported as a raw material, and it has been necessary for us to import various manufactured asbestos products. A number of large projects now under way will not only increase our production of asbestos but, in particular, increase our production of manufactured products for both the domestic and export markets.
I have already referred to recent developments in our automobile industry, and there are similar developments in a number of our other secondary manufacturing industries. For example, one of the largest United States manufacturers of automatic washing machines is to establish a plant in Canada for the manufacture of his products. The Canadian plant will supply most of the export markets already established by the United States parent company, and at the same time will manufacture repair parts for the world market, including the United States.


Percy Chapman Black: That plant is located in Amherst, Nova Scotia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nine million dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We always take care of the maritime provinces. Another instance of the kind of industrial development at present occurring in Canada is the manufacture of noiseless typewriters. In this case as well, one of the largest United States companies is establishing a plant here to manufacture noiseless typewriters, to supply its entire market for this type of machine. Similar developments are occurring in other fields which cannot be detailed here, except perhaps to mention such products as fountain pens and pencils, various publications, et cetera, which are to be produced in Canada to supply foreign markets already established by United States parent companies.
Expansion now under way in still other industries will reduce our dependence on imports and will increase our exports. Some of these are petroleum products, industrial

Supply-Trade and Commerce
chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ophthalmic lenses, machinery, tools, hardware, food products, et cetera. In many of these plants, products that have never before been made in Canada will be manufactured here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to thank the minister for the statement he has given us. He has covered part of what I asked, and I think, very fully. The minister has dealt in a somewhat detailed way with the operation of 3, part III, of the conservation act, and he has given certain general indications as to what may be expected in the way of increased exports, not merely to other countries but to the United States. I want to ask him for figures on the last point. What actual figures have we got up to date? And that leads me, of course, to ask what the situation of the exchange fund is from month to month.
There is the other point I mentioned, when we come to the foreign market, namely, what is the position there? What are our trade agreements and what are our other expectations? We should like to know something about this, so that we can form our own estimate, as well as we can, of what we may expect to derive through purchases in Europe and elsewhere by their making use of Marshall plan dollars. If the minister has not those figures available, they can be given later, but I think we need them in order to get the complete picture. I am grateful for what he has given tonight. It is along the lines of what I wanted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as imports and exports are concerned, I can deal with the two largest markets, the one in the United States and the other in England. As regards the United States, our imports are dropping month by month and our exports are expanding as compared with similar months a year ago.
In January of this year imports from the United States were $150 million as compared with $136-4 million in 1947. In February they dropped to S136-8 million as against $138-4 million last year. In March they dropped to $138-3 million as against $165-1 million. For April the figure is $161 million as against $183-5 million for 1947.
So much for imports. As far as exports are concerned, a better showing is made. In January, 1948, we exported $105 million as against $79-5 million in January of last year. In February of this year we exported $94-8 million as against $69-4 million last year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister break down a typical month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have only the over-all figures. There are thousands of these items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I meant in groups.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will see what I can do. In March we exported $112-5 million to the United States-that is, this year-as against $83-1 million last year, and in April we exported $111-4 million as against $91-3 million last year. So much for the United States.
I turn now to England. Imports are rising steadily, which is desirable. Exports are always up, but only slightly. In January, imports from the United Kingdom were $21-6 million this year as against $14-3 million for 1947. In February of this year w-e imported $17-9 million as against $10-5 million in February last year. In March of this year we imported $21-6 million as against $13-8 million last year. I am sorry we have not the April figure on imports.
As regards exports to the United Kingdom, in January of this year we exported $64-9 million as against $50-5 million last year. In February we exported $51-7 million as against $44-9 million last year. In March we exported $59-2 million as against $47-6 million last year.
So that the trend is definitely in the direction w-e require: reduced imports from the United States and increased exports to the United States; and as far as England is concerned, increased imports from England.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Again I am grateful for what the minister has given, but I would point out that there are other things which I included in my first statement and which I hope he will give tomorrow. These figures will appear in Hansard, and I hope the minister will not bring this on at eleven o'clock because we shall not have Hansard at that hour. The minister has given us these figures, but I think we should have a breakdown of some months in order to have an idea of quantities and the nature of goods in addition to the over-all figures. We want to know about payments, about the amount w-hich is assured to us by contract for the rest of the year, and in general-while I repeat my thanks to the minister for what he has given-we need a good deal more to enable us to get the complete picture. I hope the minister will continue what he has so satisfactorily begun.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give the hon. member a breakdown now. These are balances, not absolute figures, ups and downs with corresponding months last year. From January to April, 1948, as compared with January to
Supply-Trade and Commerce

April, 1947, in aluminum and products our exports increased by $19 million; copper and products, our exports increased by $10 million-


Mr. HACKETT:: To where?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all Canada's trade. It does not matter where very much; it is all for dollars. Nickel and products increased by $7 million; pulp increased by $14 million; newsprint increased by $12 million; lumber dropped $1 million; in wheat there was no change; flour dropped $13 million owing to the shortage of the crop, resulting in the fact that we had not the wheat to make flour; bacon increased $19 million; other meats dropped by $2 million; farm machinery increased by $12 million; and trucks dropped by $11 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is now eleven o'clock. The minister has given us a good deal of material; and I would ask him to put himself in our position, because I hope that we shall have enough wit to ask further questions in order to get the fullest information available-it may not be absolutely complete, but the fullest information available-as to just what our position is at the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you will be patient I can put on the record the imports for the same period.


John Thomas Hackett: Are the figures just read the whole trade of Canada to all the world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just differences from last year.


John Thomas Hackett: I know, but differences in all trade with what countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The world. Imports for the same period; from January to March, 1948, inclusive, coal imports increased by $13 million-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have you the total?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Petroleum increased by $19 million; farm machinery increased by $8 million; other machinery increased bj' $17 million; automobile parts increased by $4 million; automobiles and trucks dropped by $11 million; cottojj products dropped by $21 million; and fruits and vegetables dropped by $12 million.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall go into committee of supply and take

the following departments: trade and commerce, reconstruction and supply, national health and welfare, transport, labour, national revenue and public works, though not necessarily in that order. We shall start with trade and commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I reiterate my request, which I think is reasonable-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend should attend here a little more frequently. I have engagements as well, and I have accommodated the opposition by postponing these estimates twice, not at the request of my hon. friend but at the request of other hon. members opposite. I have to leave town tomorrow, and I should like the privilege of placing these estimates before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister can proceed or not, but I am making what I think is a reasonable request. He has placed many figures on Hansard tonight. If we were meeting at three o'clock tomorrow I would not be making this request, but we are meeting at eleven and we shall not have Hansard before us. Quite frankly I think the public interest should take precedence over the minister's personal convenience.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I quite agree, but I have spent five hours on this, and have obliged the opposition already on two occasions. So I think hon. gentlemen opposite might have a little consideration for me. I have a few things to do also. Probably I have as much to do as my hon. friend, and I should like to fit in my appointments somehow.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am going to bring my estimates on tomorrow. My hon. friend can talk about them then if he wishes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would it be helpful to suggest that the minister come on with his items at eleven o'clock, as he says, but that he might make some rearrangement to suit the convenience of my hon. friend?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly; I do not expect to finish tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Start with some item other than this one; we might make better progress in that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the international wheat agreement? The minister might even bring that on.

Supply-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope to bring that on some day, but I am going to have my estimates passed first, if hon. members opposite will let me do so.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
500.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital (revote $1,360,000) - $3,547,000.
501.	Strait of Canso-transportation improve-minal facilities-capital (revote $1,360,000), $500,000.
Maritime Freight Kates Act-
502.	To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1948-49 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway Company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1948 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $4,280,000.
503.	Amount required to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1948-49 of the difference (estimated by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1948 under the tariffs approved by the following companies: Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company; Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway; Temiscouata Railway Company, $1,000,000. Government employees' compensation-
504.	Administration of the Government Employees' Compensation Act, $57,521.
Pensions and other benefits-
505.	Compassionate allowance to recoup the Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia in continuation of a pension granted and to be paid by that board up to the 31st March, 1949, in the sum of $40 per month to the widow of the late E. J. McCoskrie, who was formerly employed as Port Warden at Prince Rupert, B.C., and who was killed while in the performance of his duties, $480.
506.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Joseph
Pouliot, Raoul Lachance, Adelard Delisle, George Laroehelle, Wilhelm Langlois, Arthur Baquet, Auguste Santerre, Jules Lamarre, Alexander Laroehelle, $2,600.
507.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1948, to March 31, 1949, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $17,500.
Air service-
(Control and supervision vested in the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply by order in council P.C. 529 of 10th February, 1948) -
508.	Air Transport Board-Salaries and office expenses, $154,297.
509.	Air service administration, $26,000.
Civil aviation division
[Stage Direction]
510.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and Regulations issued thereunder, $569,523.
Airways and airports-
511.	Construction and improvements, including radio facilities; and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $452,000 (revote $3,109,500)-capital, $11,138,309.
Operation and maintenance-
512.	Civil aviation services, $3,432,160.
513.	Radio aviation services, $3,868,495.
514.	Airway and airport traffic control, $924,139.
515.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $30,000.
Meteorological division-
516.	Meteorological services, $4,674,335.
Radio division-
517.	Administration of the Radio Act and Regulations, $540,277.
518.	Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $1,508,243.
519.	Suppression of radio interferences, $321,291.

[Stage Direction]
429.	Citizenship registration branch, $165,105.
430.	Companies branch, $58,880.
431.	Trade Marks branch, $48,316.
432.	Bureau of translations, $572,145.
433.	Canada Temperance Act, $6,000.
434.	Citizenship branch, $86,405.
Patent and copyright office
[Stage Direction]
435.	Administration division, $42,353.
436.	Patent division-patent examination unit, $244,037.
437.	Copyright and industrial designs division, $14,975.
438.	Patent record division, $54,257.
439.	Contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, inter-
Supply-Secretary oj State
[Stage Direction]
national copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $4,000. Office of the Chief Electoral Officer-
49.	Salaries and expenses of office, $30,198. Civil service commission-
50.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $676,220.
Demobilization and reconversion-
51.	Supply of personnel for demobilization and reconversion services, $543,723.
Public Archives-
320.	General administration and technical services, $163,238.
Public Printing and Stationery-
321.	Departmental administration, $47,027.
322.	Printing, binding and distributing the annual statutes, $15,000.
323.	Canada Gazette, $83,430.
324.	Plant equipment and replacements, $30,-
000.
325.	Distribution of official documents, $68,300.
326.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $125,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 11, 1948