Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to make a statement of the policy of the government on civil air transport. First with respect to domestic aviation:
1.	During the war a remarkable expansion of Canadian aviation has taken place-in the training of air and ground personnel, in the construction of airports and air navigation facilities, in the manufacture of aircraft, and in the extension of air transport services. Details of this expansion in aviation cannot be revealed at present, and therefore its magnitude is not generally appreciated. The Canadian government is aware of the importance of the developments in aviation now in progress and intends that the people of Canada shall benefit from them to the fullest possible extent.
2.	The expansion of air transport services during the period of the war has been confined to war requirements. Canada has concentrated on the development of the British Commonwealth air training plan and on combat flying and, as a result, by agreement with our allies, military air transport in the

Civil Air Transport
northwest has largely been undertaken by the United States army and on the northeast ferry routes by the ferry commands. When war necessities permit and suitable equipment can be obtained, the government will encourage the further development within Canada of air transport services, to supplement and form part of an up-to-date transportation system for Canada by land, water r and air. Transport by air requires close 1 supervision on the part of the government.
] The board of transport commissioners will be ; responsible for regulating traffic matters and 5 for allocating new routes apart from the lines brought under the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. The civil aviation branch of the Department of Transport will be responsible for the administration of traffic and safety regulations and for the physical development of airways. The government intends to plan a number of routes suitable for post-war air services and offering traffic possibilities that [DOT] will warrant a service. These routes will make use of aerodromes that have been developed for war purposes. The government will also continue to develop airports and other facilities for weather reporting and communications, which will contribute to the expansion of Canadian air transport.
3.	While the employment in a peace-time air transport service of all the air and ground personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force and all the men and women now employed in the aircraft industry in Canada will be impossible, a considerable number will be absorbed into the peace-time aviation industry. To this end the government has undertaken the design of distinctive Canadian types of transport aircraft suitable for post-war industry, in the hope that, when the war ends, a part at least of the equipment for Canadian air transport will be furnished by Canadian factories.
4.	Trans-Canada Air Lines will continue to be the instrument of the government in maintaining all trans-continental air transport services and in operating services across international boundary lines and outside Canada. The government will encourage the company to obtain modern aircraft which will keep present services up to modern standards and will expand these services to the fullest extent that post-war conditions permit. The development of supplementary routes will continue to be left to private enterprise, unless considerations of public interest indicate that certain of these routes should be designated by the government as routes to be operated by T.C.A. The operations of T.C.A. will continue to be limited to important services
of a mainline character, where the volume of passenger and mail traffic would justify it.
With respect to international aviation:
5.	Canada has a geographical position that will enable it to play an important part in the development of international air transport routes. During the war, the development of international civil air routes must be deferred in favour of military aviation. Canada to-day is the fourth greatest military air power among the united nations, and in the postwar period Canada can make an equally great contribution to civilian air transport.
6.	The future of international air transport will be determined in large measure by negotiations between the governments of the united nations. The policy of the government at the moment in dealing with all questions which affect international air transport is to make temporary arrangements, leaving the issues open so that Canada may be able to support, in international negotiations when they take place, whatever policy appears best at that time. The government, however, intends to press vigorously for a place in international air transportation consistent with Canada's geographical position and progress in aviation. All concessions and privileges that have been granted by Canada to other countries as part of the war effort will terminate at the end of the war or almost immediately thereafter.
7.	T.C.A. has by its charter the right to operate international air transport services and has already been designated as the instrument of the Canadian government in air transport service across the north Atlantic, and in Canadian services to the United States. The fact that international negotiations of great importance must shortly take place confirms the wisdom of government policy under which its freedom of action in international negotiations is not limited by the existence of private interests in international air transport services.
8.	The government has established an interdepartmental committee on international civil aviation to advise it on all matters of international air transport which affect Canada, and particularly on the attitude which Canada should adopt towards post-war developments. This committee has already been at work for a considerable time.
9.	The problems of international air transport are, of course, immense and cannot be solved by one country. We are determined, however, that our influence on the course
Civil Air Transport

of events will be in the direction of international co-operation and collaboration. The Canadian government is in complete agreement with the United Kingdom government that "some form of international collaboration will be essential if the air is to be developed in the interests of mankind as a whole, trade served, international understanding fostered and international security-gained."
Conclusion:
10.	The policy of the Canadian government on air transport may be summed up as follows:
(a)	The government sees no good reason for changing its policy that Trans-Canada Air Lines is the sole Canadian agency which may operate international air services.
(b)	Within Canada, Trans-Canada Air Lines will continue to operate all transcontinental systems, and such other services of a mainline character as may from time to time be designated by the government. Competition between air services over the same route will not be permitted whether between a publicly-owned service and a privately-owned service or between two privately-owned services. There will remain a large field for the development of air transport in which private Canadian companies may participate, and, while preventing duplication of services, the government will continue to encourage private companies to develop services as traffic possibilities may indicate.
(c)	In order to prepare for forthcoming international negotiations on air transport, the government is studying carefully the problems which will have to be dealt with in the negotiations.
(d)	The Canadian government strongly favours a policy of international collaboration and co-operation in air transport and is prepared to support in international negotiations whatever international air transport policy can be demonstrated as being best calculated to serve not only the immediate national interests of Canada but also our overriding interest in the establishment of an international order which will prevent the outbreak of another world war.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Prime Minister indicate when he expects the negotiations between the various nations, which he has announced, to begin? Will he indicate also whether or not there have been any preliminary discussions on this point between the united nations or others who may be involved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position to indicate when negotiations will be formally commenced between the united nations. With respect to the other question, I should like to have it stand as a notice, and I will give my hon. friend more exact information at another time.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: ' Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that most of our dairy programme becomes effective as of yesterday, I should like to announce the price and subsidy arrangements that will apply on cheese, butter, milk used for fluid milk consumption and milk used for concentration purposes into whole milk products during the 1943-44 production season.
An agreement is being completed with the British ministry of food for 150,000,000 pounds of cheese to be shipped from Canada from the production of the year commencing April 1, 1943, on a price basis of 20 cents per pound at factory or grading shipping point. The shipping point basis has been substituted for the Montreal basis because when cheese is requisitioned inequalities result in returns which otherwise do not occur where cheese is sold for local consumption. The price of 20 cents at shipping point means an increase of % cent to one cent per pound, depending on the location of the factory or grading station. Quality premiums of one cent per pound for
93	score cheese and two cents per pound for
94	score cheese payable by the dominion government are being continued. Apart from provincial subsidies which may be provided, the maximum return for cheese for export will therefore be 22 cents per pound at shipping point.
I wish to announce also the establishment of minimum prices for first grade creamery butter, delivered to the purchaser as follows:
Alberta	B.C.	P.E.I.Saskatchewan	Ontario	N.S.Manitoba	Quebec	N.B.c. per lb.	c. per lb.	c. per lb.May, 1943	... 30	32	33June, 1943	... 301	321	33fJuly, 1943	... 30J	323	331Aug., 1943 .	... 311	331	341Sept., 1943 .	... 314	334	344Oct., 1943 .	... 311	331	341Nov., 1943 .	... 323	343	353Dec., 1943 to Apr., 1944	.. 321	34f	351
Oil Control
The dairy products board has been authorized to support the butter market as may be necessary to maintain these minimum prices, by purchasing butter on the basis of the minimum prices specified for butter delivered at Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal during the month purchased. In addition to these measures a dominion government subsidy of 8 cents per pound will be paid to producers for butterfat used in the manufacture of creamery butter during the months from May,
1943,	to December, 1943, both inclusive, and a subsidy of 10 cents per pound for butterfat for the months from January, 1944, to April,
1944,	both inclusive.
Provision likewise has been made for the payment of a dominion government subsidy for the production year commencing May 1, 1943 of 25 cents per hundred pounds on such milk used for fluid milk consumption as the agricultural food board may determine. Producers of milk used for concentration purposes into whole milk products will be paid a dominion government subsidy of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk used for this purpose during the period from October 1, 1943, to April 30, 1944.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I
ask the minister if any provision is being made for what is commonly known as dairy butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in connection with this particular arrangement, but there are separate arrangements made in connection with dairy butter.



CONFERENCE TO CONSIDER POST-WAR PROBLEMS- CANADIAN PARTICIPATION

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 31, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) asked, as reported at page 1725 of Hansard, whether Canada would participate in the conference to be held in the United States on April 27 to consider long range post-war food problems; and if so, how and by whom this country would be represented.
May I say in reply that the Canadian government warmly welcomes the initiative of the President of the United States in issuing invitations for the discussion of questions connected with the distribution and consumption of food in the post-war world, and will be represented at these discussions. How and by whom will be stated in due course.



OIL CONTROL


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday's orders of the day the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised a question of privilege concerning the reply made by the Department of Munitions and Supply to a question of the hon. member regarding Lawrence B. Lougheed. It was the contention of the hon. member that incorrect information had been given in the reply, inasmuch as the reply stated that Lawrence B. Lougheed was not an employee of the oil control branch, whereas evidence taken under oath in a court case in Toronto would indicate that he was.
I now find that the reply given to the question is quite correct. Lawrence B. Lougheed is not now, nor has he ever been, an employee of the oil control branch. I am informed that Lawrence B. Lougheed is an enforcement officer of the wartime prices and trade board. Had the question been framed in more general terms this information would have been given. As it was, the question asked specifically whether Mr. Lougheed was an employee of the oil control branch; and a specific answer was given.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Have enforcement officers been engaged to look after the enforcement of oil control regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not by the oil controller. Enforcement is handled by a separate organization, administered as a branch under the direction of, and as part of the organization of, the wartime prices and trade board.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege arising out of the statement by the minister, I asked a question based upon the sworn testimony of Lawrence B. Lougheed and the other men named, wherein these men, called by the representative of the oil controller, Mr. J. C. McRuer, K.C., swore to the following statement:
Q. Mr. Lougheed, on August 14 last you were employed to do some special investigation by the oil controller of Canada?
A. Yes, sir.
The minister now says that the witness, an agent provocateur, who gave evidence in Toronto, as the result of which a conviction was registered, gave false testimony.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say that Mr.-McRuer was not engaged by the oil controller. He was engaged by the Department of Justice. And I think that a reading of the evidence, with a knowledge of the facts, will indicate
Canadian Alliance Insurance

that the answers given in the examination are not inconsistent with the situation which I have disclosed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved:: That the petition of Theodore Panos and Mary Constance Keys Bates, presented on March 31, each prayiDg for the passing of an act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders to consider the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Does this involve
another volume of printed evidence, such as we had handed to us a few days ago? Is this the type of thing which develops in that way?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand this is a divorce case.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am referring to something which was apparently along the same lines, in connection with which we received a volume some inches in thickness, thereby loading more work on the king's printer. Could some arrangement not be made to eliminate an imposition of this kind?


Thomas Vien: This is a reference to the committee. I am told there will be no printing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont) moved:: That the standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of exempting the petitioners for the introduction of Bill No. 54 (Letter C of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company" from the capital stock charge and other charges levied during the last session of parliament required by the rules of the house, said charges having been paid last session on Bill No. 116 (Letter A-4 of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company" that had received second reading and that stood for consideration by the committee of the whole when prorogation took place in January, 1943.


Mr. POULIOT:: Happy birthday to you.


Lionel Chevrier: Last evening the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me if I would give the house an explanation in connection with this bill. If I may be permitted,

I will do so at this stage. The bill is one to incorporate the Canadian Alliance Insurance company. The powers are contained in section 6 of the bill. The company seeks the right to sell fire insurance and other casualty insurance. It is an insurance company which has been in existence in the province of Quebec for the last five years. At the last session of parliament a bill passed both houses, was approved by both committees of banking and commerce, and was approved as well by the superintendent of insurance. This is a standard bill in the usual form which applies to insurance companies of the kind. Had it not been for a mishap it probably would have received third reading.


Gordon Graydon: What was the mishap-


Lionel Chevrier: The fact is that it had received both first and second readings, and was about to receive third reading when prorogation took place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942, by clarifying in certain respects the basis of payment in respect to wheat acreage reduction in the year 1942 and to provide that payments may be made in respect of wheat acreage reduction in the year 1943.
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.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The resolution indicates the bringing down of a bill which will provide for payments to be made on wheat acreage reductions in 1942 which resulted from the seeding of grass or rye in areas preceding 1942. That was intended, but the act did not make it clear. It provides also for the payment in 1943 of $2 per acre wheat acreage reduction on each acre by which wheat acreage is reduced in 1943 as compared with 1940.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Vien: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Business of the House
Ottawa, April 2, 1943.
Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F.	L. C. Pereira.
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I received a telegram from Mr. Elphege Beaudoin, president of local 790, and president of the provincial federation of labour, with regard to the Montreal tramways strike. It reads as follows:
Jean-Frangois Pouliot, M.P.,
Ottawa.
As a result of an illegal strike my own members are unable to go back to work. Those who want to work are forced to pay one dollar to the Canadian brotherhood. Three of my men were beaten this morning. We are loyal citizens who have always respected the laws of the country and we have a right to expect protection from government authorities. It is enough that we were robbed of our authority as a party to illegal contract without having to pay a penalty in order to be able to return to work. In the name of justice I demand immediate action from the government. If we are unable to get justice in this case blood might be shed in the streets between the workers members of the A.F. of L. and the Canadian brotherhood who perpetrated this illegal strike.
Elphege Beaudoin,
President,
Local 790, President of the Provincial Federation of Labour.
If it would be of any help I am ready to go to Montreal at my own expense to look into this matter and to report to the minister in due course.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend in volunteering to inquire into this alleged dispute. Just before the house opened- I received a wire similar to the one he has just read. He may rest assured that an officer of my department will be dispatched immediately to Montreal to see if the statements made in the wire are true. I do not know that I can say anything more, except that the first responsibility for the maintenance of law and order rests upon the civil government of the city of Montreal. I think that is clearly understood by everyone in this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members have just heard His Honour the Speaker read a communication from His Excellency the Governor General to the effect that it is expected that the Deputy of His Excellency will proceed to another place this afternoon or this evening to give assent to certain bills. The house will recall that on March 26 two bills were passed, one for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security and the other to grant certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1944. The government hopes that at the same time it will be possible to have the royal assent given to the supplementary estimates which during the last day or two have been under consideration in committee of the whole.
At the moment we have planned to have the deputy of the governor general present at a quarter to six o'clock this afternoon. If the estimates have not been passed by that time it will be necessary for the government to ask hon. members to sit this evening to see if we cannot have the royal assent given to the supplementary estimates before eleven o'clock to-night. Hon. members will recall that I said the government hoped we might be able to have the Easter adjournment begin on April 16, which is a fortnight from to-day. I am afraid that jf this measure and one or two others which we are concerned about are not completed by that time it may be necessary to shorten the Easter recess more than we had hoped it would be shortened.


Gordon Graydon: I am somewhat confused as to the necessity for the rush in putting through the further supplementary estimates. I do not direct my question to the Prime Minister; I direct it to the Minister of Finance. The other evening the Minister of Finance asked us to vote certain items in the further supplementary estimates on the basis that if they were not passed that evening the civil service might conceivably have to go without their pay at the end of the month. I ask this question only for purposes of clarification, but it is very necessary that the minister answer it. We are now being asked to finish up the further supplementary estimates in order that they, as well as the items which were passed in such a rush and on that basis, may be given royal assent this evening. If that is so, then the obligation is upon the Minister of Finance to indicate what was the necessity for the speed
Business oj the House

which was indicated iwhen he asked us to expedite the matter on that particular occasion. The procedure was irregular and it placed us in a very embarrassing position; we were faced with either meeting the government's wishes or seeming to hold up, as we thought and as we were told by the government, the pay of the civil service. I should like the minister to clarify that. There may be an answer, but it does seem to me that time after time we are being asked to press and push things through. This opposition is here for the purpose of examining carefully the expenditures of the government, and there are tremendous expenditures. We are not objecting to them, but we do want to have the opportunity of examining, so far as we may with the limited means at our disposal, each item of government expenditure. Some of these items run up to almost three-quarters of a million dollars. The minister ought to explain to the house why he asked that these estimates be pushed through so hurriedly.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I explained that in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) on the day of the evening in question.


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry I was not in the house on that occasion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman will find what I said in Hansard, but I will repeat it for his information and for the information of hon. members.
So far as I know the government never issues cheques unless there is some authority for the expenditure, unless the House of Commons has passed upon it. But there have been occasions in the past when after items were approved by the House of Commons-


Richard Burpee Hanson: After resolutions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, a resolution or an item. Where it has been passed upon by the house the Minister of Finance has taken it upon himself to direct the comptroller of the treasuiy to issue cheques, knowing that the legislation confirming wdiat had been done would be passed later. That was why I wanted these estimates through that night- because the civil servants had either to be paid the next day or told to wait. I therefore picked out the most pressing items and asked the house to pass them, which it was good enough to do on the understanding that hon. members would have the fullest opportunity of discussing anything in connection

with these items on a particular item I named. That discussion is going on at the present time.
With regard to royal assent, beginning yesterday morning telephone calls have been coming in from various departments wanting money. I do not want to press too far this practice of paying out money without legal authority, and I do not propose to do so if I can help it. We have passed two interim supply bills, one of them on March 26 providing for payments in the present fiscal year. Those payments are being clamoured for at the present time, and yesterday and to-day we have had to tell them that they cannot get their money until to-morrow. That is on the assumption that there will be royal assent to-day to the bills which have already gone through.


Gordon Graydon: They are not held up, in any event.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. With regard to the supplementary estimates I do not know exactly what the position is, but the official who is sitting with me here told me, when they were discussed the other evening, that very early in April, there would be a pressing demand for money to be paid under these supplementary estimates. I assume that that is the case, but I do not know just what items are affected. My information on that is not definite.
I would point out that I brought these supplementary items before the house one week ago to-day, confidently expecting that both the supplementary estimates and the interim supply bill would go through that afternoon. Year after year the supplementary estimates, which are merely for the purpose of carrying out existing commitments the principle of which has been passed upon at the previous session, which introduce nothing new, and which presumably have been fully debated, go through in half an hour or an hour. But instead of that we have been a week on these supplementary estimates, and I have had to keep pushing back my budget resolutions from day to day. Hon. gentlemen know the pressing nature of those resolutions. I am running myself into grave difficulties by deferring the placing of those resolutions before the house. There is also the mutual aid bill which it is most embarrassing at the present time for us not to have passed. I do not think I am asking the house for anything unreasonable when I place these supplementary estimates before them on one Friday and we go through to another Friday without having taken anything else up in the meantime, not a thing so far as I can remember-there was the debate on the

Business oj the House
motion to go into supply on Monday and Tuesday, but I could not help that debate-I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable when I request the house this afternoon and if necessary this evening to help me put through these supplementaries. They bring not a single new thing before the house. There is nothing in them except to carry out existing commitments. Members during this session, as soon as we get to the main estimates, and I am willing to get to them as soon as possible, will have an opportunity of debating upon them anything they might wish to raise on these items. But we cannot do all our debating in the early days of the session. You cannot press everything into those early days. Important legislation is waiting to come down. There are the budget resolutions, the arrangement with regard to last year's taxes, and the war appropriation, which we have not touched at all, which we cannot get to at all. There is also the mutual aid bill, which is most urgent. In view of all this I think it is only reasonable to ask the house to help expedite the passing of these supplementaries.


Gordon Graydon: There is a very good reason why at this session there has been perhaps a little more extended debate than usual on the further supplementary estimates. I remember distinctly what happened in the dying days of the last session. The labour department, for example, brought on its estimates only two or three days before the session closed. It is all very well to say that hon. members could have had all the time they liked to debate those estimates. True, but every one realizes the atmosphere of the house in the dying days of a session and the invisible pressure which every member feels in speeding up business. I am not seeking to place the responsibility for that upon any one, but I am just pointing out that there is that feeling when the house is trying to draw its business to a close. One of the reasons why the further supplementary estimates have engaged the attention of the house to a greater extent on this occasion is that at the end of last session members had not entirely exhausted their questions and their desire for information on these items.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar) :: I was just going to say precisely what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has said. If we were assured that at this session the estimates would be taken up in such a manner that we can discuss the various matters that come under them I have no doubt that the passage of these supplementary estimates would be greatly facilitated. Hon. members will recall that when we adjourned last session on August 1 the labour estimates came on only a
few hours before we adjourned and I remember distinctly that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mclnnis) protested vigorously against the delay in bringing down those estimates. The fact that we were not able to discuss them at that time as fully as we should have liked accounts I think for the more extended discussion now. So far as we are concerned, although I have not had an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues since this matter arose, I think I can say we are prepared to assist the minister in putting these estimates through, on the understanding that we shall not do as we have done in other sessions, leave the passing of the main estimates until the end of the session, when they cannot be given adequate consideration.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned the Easter recess. I think the duty of the house is to give thorough consideration to the business coming before it and we should not rush the business in order to get away for Easter. The reason some of us were anxious that the house should adjourn for a fairly long period at Easter was that we have been asked to assist various organizations in the promotion of the victory loan. Some of us planned to go back home to say a word in regard to the campaign. We are anxious to do that. But we should give thorough consideration to the matters before us in the house. I realize that the minister is anxious to get the budget resolutions through, and, although I do not know what is in the minister's mind regarding the mutual aid bill, I know enough from the newspapers and from statistics I have seen to realize that that may be a pressing matter. If we know that when the estimates come up we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the matters we wish to discuss, there is no reason why this comparatively small estimate-it is only $2,694,000 out of over $560,000,000-should not be passed. The trouble is that we have been discussing here what we should have discussed on the main estimates.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: May I
say just a word? I am not going to occupy much time, because we have already taken up time which could have been spent on the estimates. Our parliamentary experience here dates back to 1936; and I do not believe, with all the talk that has gone on in this chamber respecting estimates, we have ever seen one item reduced by one dollar. This is significant. It means that except for the principle involved we might just as well accommodate the minister and say that we will pass the estimates and talk about them afterwards.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.
Business oj the House


Ernest George Hansell: I knew you would say
"oh, no"; that is why I modified the statement by saying "except for the principle involved". I have often wondered why the whips of each party could not get together on the matter of estimates and let us present to the ministers concerned the estimates we are particularly interested in, so that when their department is called they might be the first to be discussed. In this way we would facilitate the business of the session by not leaving important estimates to be discussed at the end of the session. So far as this group is concerned we would like to accommodate the minister and get these estimates through this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say one word regarding what has been said, as to having the estimates down a little earlier.


Mr. COLD WELL:: It is as to having them discussed at an earlier stage. They are down early enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon-having them discussed and voted on at an early date. A week ago to-day I was unavoidably absent from the house, but I requested one of my colleagues to ask hon. members if they would allow us to call two departments simply that estimates might be proceeded with on a Thursday or Friday, when there is no risk of losing an opportunity of early discussion through some amendment on the motion to go into supply being presented. That very simple proposal has not yet been acceded to. If it were, it would enable the government to take up on any Thursday or Friday whatever particular departmental estimates the house might have agreed to take up on either of those days. I said to the hon. members some time ago that to facilitate the passing of the estimates with as little loss of time as possible, the government was prepared to consider referring certain of the estimates to standing committees, and with this in view one of the departments which it was suggested might be called was the Department of Fisheries. It had been my intention, had an item in that department been called, to move very shortly thereafter that the estimates of that department be referred to the standing committee on fisheries, as a test of how that particular method of procedure might work out-all with a view to getting ahead with consideration of estimates. I imagine hon. members have not realized that such was the motive of the government. We have been anxious to get the estimates before the house. But these other measures which have been considered are of an exceptional character, and we have had to proceed with them first.

As to the Easter recess, one of the reasons the government was anxious to have a fortnight's recess is the one which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned. It was hoped that hon. members would, as we felt sure they would, take advantage of their presence in their constituencies to speak on behalf of the victory loan. But there is another reason. It is not a desire on the part of the government to obtain a holiday, or to have anyone have what might by some be regarded as a prolonged recess. From the government's point of view it is to give some of us an opportunity of having that careful discussion of matters of policy, over a period of days, which we cannot get when the house is sitting from day to day, but which is very necessary as a part of the work of government in this time of war.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the Prime Minister discussed with the leaders of the groups the possibility of referring certain departments to committees-which we in this group approved. Did that meet with the approval of the various parties in the house? If so why could we not do it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heard from my hon. friend that he approved, and I believed his group would. I had every reason to believe that others would be prepared to accept one department or two departments as I have indicated, and it was for that reason I had asked particularly for the Department of Fisheries. Had any exception been taken at the time of proposing the motion, it would of course have been withdrawn.


Gordon Graydon: Arising out of the statement made by the Prime Minister in connection with referring the estimates to a committee, I did not apprehend until after reflection that perhaps he was indicating that our group had in some way given consent to the reference of any of the estimates to a committee. That is a matter upon which we want to reserve judgment at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did say I had had approval of the idea from the hon. member from Rosetown-Biggar, and that I had proposed to bring the matter up formally, but if that exception should be taken when I introduced the motion I would not press it. I meant by that that any further word as to the attitude of others would, I imagine, be intimated to the house in the course of the discussion.

Supply-Finance



PRIVILEGE-MR. CLOUTIER CELANESE FACTORY AT DRUMMONDVILLE-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES

Mr. ARMAND CLOUTIER (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a question of privilege? I have received a telegram from a citizen of my home town of Drummondville which reads as follows:
Approximately 600 employees Celanese will be dismissed in a few days unles immediate intervention hon. Minister of Munitions and Supply. Here is summary of facts. Celanese requires five carloads per month anhydric acetic acid. Controller chemical products just rationed Celanese two cars per month which will reduce production and labour twenty per cent. Information proves that Canada produces [DOT] enough of this acid for requirements of this country but exports large quantities to England not for military purposes but for production artificial silk which is afterwards exported to Canada. Should make inquiry in house immediately to assert Drummondville interests.
I would like to ask what measures the Minister of Munitions and Supply will take to avoid this situation in my locality.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question. I consulted with the chemicals controller, and am advised by him that the firm in question, which is the Celanese company, knew six months ago that a period of from six weeks to two months would be required to change over the plant making this particular chemical. The suggestion is that we cut off our exports to England so that this plant be not interrupted, but I may say that we have a contract with the United Kingdom Ministry of Supply to furnish certain quantities of this product monthly, and we know that the ministry rely on it for certain war production. We intend to maintain our shipments, and we shall do all we can to keep the shortage of supply to the Celanese company to a vminimum. I might add that the Celanese company is the only user in Canada of this product, and we believe that they could, with- six months' notice, have built up a stockpile to meet a situation which they knew to be inevitable.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: On Monday,
March 29, in response to a question asked by me, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, as reported on page 1644 of Hansard, that he expected to be able to make a statement within twenty-four or forty-eight hours as to the manner in which exports of coarse
grain and other feed grains could be handled and the profits returned to producers through the wheat board. Could the minister now give the house this statement, or say when he will give it? It wdll have a direct bearing on the plans of farmers for their seeding operations.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am afraid I was too definite in that promise. I hope to be able to make a statement at the beginning of the week.



WARTIME HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). I did not have opportunity to advise the minister of this question but it appeare that there is a definite rumour that wartime housing is about to develop into permanent housing construction. Would the minister make a statement within a day or two so that the ordinary construction men in the larger centres will get some idea of what is developing?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
ilG. Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office-further amount required, $16,630.
John George Diefenbaker: Under the order
in council in volume 6 page 177, of proclamations and orders in council, relating to the war, wide powers are given to inspectors in connection with the enforcement of the cost-of-living bonus. As this is the only opportunity that will arise to discuss this order in council I wish to do so at this time, and with particular reference to the statement made to-day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply regarding enforcement officers.
It should be the aim of the government to enforce war-time regulations fairly and squarely and without regard to persons. I am not here to argue that legislation such as this should not be strictly enforced. Anyone who will commit offences against
Supply-Finance

war-time legislation, whether it is in the form of a statute or an order in council, is entitled to no consideration. I am not going to deal to-day with the question of the impropriety of having legislation as important as this in the form of an order in council, but I do object to the powers that are given to inspectors and enforcement officers under this and other like orders in council.
Under the order in council setting up the cost-of-living bonus the inspectors have powers that are not possessed under the common law or under many statutes. They have the power to examine orally, either alone or in the presence of another person, as they see fit, every person whom they find on the premises or in a place where they have reasonable cause to believe the person to be or to have been employed. Here the government sets up by order in council a group of persons called inspectors, who have the right to try a man before he comes to court. In ordinary proceedings there is not that right. And these inspectors have the right to insist upon receiving an answer to every question that they pose. That is bad enough, but when in other branches of government you find that the government is appointing enforcement officers who go through this country and induce the commission of offences during their investigation, I think the time has come to bring this to the attention of parliament.
Let me give an example. The other day I asked a question as to whether or not certain individuals were employed in the department of the oil controller, and the answer given was that they were not. Those individuals were called by the special counsel for the crown, Mr. McRuer, K.C., and they gave exidence there under examination that they were hired by the oil controller-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. Will the hon. gentleman indicate the item on which he is speaking?


John George Diefenbaker: I am dealing with the granting of powers under orders in council such as are granted undeT the cost-of-living bonus order in council, and illustrating my point by reference to what is going on in another department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I submit that the connection which the hon. gentleman is seeking to make between the subject matter of his discussion and the item before the committee is merely artificial. I am afraid that if hon. members are free to adopt that expedient there is nothing at all that could not be discussed

under any item, and we shall be ranging over the whole field. The item that the hon. gentleman is speaking on is item 417:
To provide, subject to allocation by the treasury board, for cost of living bonus-further amount required, $745,000.
That is the costiof-living bonus for civil servants. The hon. gentleman moves from cost-of-living bonus to civil servants, for which there are no inspectors, to cost-of-living bonus for industry, for which there are inspectors. He is discussing the inspectors in industry, but he then makes another jump to other inspectors who are doing another kind of inspection work in connection with cost-of-living bonus, and proceeds to make his speech. I contend that the connection is so remote and artificial that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: The understanding at the time was, I took it, that some latitude would be given on almost any subject pertaining to the items that were passed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It may be true that the argument being made by the present speaker is going rather far afield, but it would be very difficult for the chairman to make a distinction. I would ask hon. members to keep as close as possible to the items before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned that this debate has been going on for a week. So far I have occupied about ten minutes. I protest against the attitude of the government in having enforcement officers in any department, whether under the cost-of-living bonus order in council, under the oil controller, or other departments, who are going out into the country and inducing the commission of offences when engaged in the investigation of offences. In the case of the Joy Oil company in the city of Toronto, in which one of the enforcement officers gave evidence to the effect that he was acting under instructions and his evidence was that he aided and abetted in the commission of the offence. The bonus order in council comes under the wartime prices and trade board. To-day the government has an army of inspectors, investigators and agents provocateurs, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury suggests, going up and down the country, which I suggest is totally unjustified. Look at what is done with regard to the oil regulations, in connection with which an answer was given yesterday. According to

Supply-Finance
that answer there are some twenty enforcement officers who have been, engaged directly to look after the enforcement of the regulations of the oil controller. Then the answer goes on:
A part of the duties ordinarily performed by 174 other investigators and other enforcement officers of the wartime prices and trade board include assistance from time to time in the enforcement of regulations of the oil controller.
All over this dominion we have engaged in investigations numbers of inspectors out of all proportion to the work they are doing. Let me give an example. The number of prosecutions under the wartime prices and trade board! is set out at page 1614 of Hansard. There is in each province a solicitor in charge of prosecutions. Most of those who are prosecuted plead guilty. Uip to February 28, 1943, the total amount of fines imposed in these cases was 8137,830, while the total legal fees in connection with the prosecutions was 850,415. These' prosecutors are not needed in most cases; the local crown counsel could be used. The minister often says, "Give me an example of waste." I say that right in his department to-day, in connection with investigations and prosecutions under the wartime prices and trade board, sums of money are being expended that are totally unnecessary. In the western provinces the agents of the attorney general would prosecute. Yet in every case counsel is appointed for the purpose of appearing for the prosecution, though in most cases the plea is one of guilty.
In connection with the inspectors who are appointed under the wage bonus regulations as well as the other branches administered by the Minister of Finance, I ask that he do away with this multitude of officials and prosecutors, who are doing more to arouse antagonism in the people than anything else being done by this government to-day. There is nothing that would be more likely to bring the enforcement of law into contempt than to have officers appointed by departments of the government instructed, as the men to whom I have referred swore they were instructed, to induce the commission of offences when engaged in the investigation of offences. The reply given yesterday by the minister to a question I asked was that these men are not authorized to endeavour, to induce the commission of offences in their investigation of infractions of the regulations, and I would ask the minister to have removed from office any officials who, while engaged as enforcement
officers, are found to have induced the commission of offences. If that is not done the wartime prices and trade board and the legislation it is endeavouring to enforce will be brought into disrepute just as liquor legislation was brought into disrepute some years ago. I ask, too, that the costs of administration in connection with the investigation of these offences be reduced to the minimum, and that the unnecessary and undemocratic powers granted to these officials in the course of their work be withdrawn. I would ask for the assurance of the minister that these unnecessary and what I call unjustifiable invasions of private rights be not countenanced by the department which he administers.


Mr. GILLIS:: Last evening in discussing the cost-of-living bonus as it applied to the mounted police special guards, the minister expressed some doubt as to the wage of $1.60 a day for single men employed in that capacity. On that occasion I stated that there was no further allowance paid to these men. In checking the matter over, I find that until recently there was an allowance of $1 a day, and that now another twenty-five cents has been added. I just want to keep the record straight on that point, and to state that single men employed in that capacity do receive an extra allowance of SI .25 a day. I think it only fair to correct the record in that regard, but I would reiterate the other things I said with respect to the cost-of-living bonus.


James Arthur Ross: When the house rose last night the question of old age pensions was being discussed, and that discussion would rather indicate a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, because on March 5 the Prime Minister certainly took credit to the federal government for the old age pensions legislation, while last evening the Minister of Finance said this was the responsibility of the provinces.
I should like to ask a question concerning my own province of Manitoba, where in the past year legislation has been passed granting an additional $1.25 a month to the old age pensioners of that province, in the hope that the federal government would grant an additional $3.75, on the understanding that the federal government pays seventy-five per cent of the cost of old age pensions while the province pays twenty-five per cent. It was pointed out in this house that Alberta and British Columbia pay the extra $5 themselves. What would have to be done by the province of Manitoba to obtain this extra $3.75? If a majority of the provinces ask the government
Supply-Finance

for this additional $5 a month, to which I think the old people are entitled at least by way of a cost-of-living bonus, would that request be given favourable consideration? It is very unfair to expect these old people to provide themselves with food, shelter and [DOT] clothing on a mere $20 a month, under present conditions. It is just impossible.
The other question to which I wish to refer is in connection with labour. I have had tiffs before with the Minister of Finance about the price ceiling set-up as it applied to agriculture, and again to-day I would point out the impossible situation many farmers will encounter this summer-in fact within the next few days. I might have brought down some of my personal correspondence which shows the wages being asked' on farms. I should like to refer to the settlement this government made last year with the steel strikers, in which a basic rate of fifty-five cents an hour was set, for ordinary labour.
I believe anyone will realize that during seeding and harvesting operations on the farms a person must work at least twelve hours a day, and at the rate of fifty-five cents this amounts to $6.60. In other parts of the season of course the farm day is about ten hours.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Does that rate include bed and board?


James Arthur Ross: No. I have said that the government made a settlement with the steel strikers for a rate of fifty-five cents an hour. That does not include bed and board. This is not the customary wage on the farm, but usually bed and board are included in the farm wage. But I am saying that if the people who are offering their services for work on the farm ask the same rate of pay as was granted labourers in steel production, then under this price ceiling set-up there is no minister who will rise in his place and say that agriculture, if it is forced to pay that rate, can continue to produce the necessary foodstuffs for the war. I believe these people who are to work on the farms are entitled to the same rate of pay as are the workers in the steel mills. To-day they are asking that, and rightly so. They point out that they can get fifty-five cents an hour from their work in mines and in industry, and that they are guaranteed that much by the government. That is further proof of the utterly hopeless situation with which we are faced.
I know of farmers in my district who operate highly mechanized farms. The men who can operate that machinery will not want to operate it this spring to put in the 
crop, because they can receive the rates I have mentioned from industry, and from other lines of work.
The Minister of Finance, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour must adjust this matter in the very near future. If they are to bonus organized labour, then they must bonus efficient agricultural labour to the same extent; otherwise the whole scheme of food production will collapse in the coming twelve months. That is something which must be faced, and I am asking for a statement from the minister in respect of these two matters.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What was the second
matter?


James Arthur Ross: I asked what would happen if a majority of the provinces asked for increased payment from the federal government, and what Manitoba's position would be with respect to old age pensions. My second question was with respect to farm labour.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not in a position to enter into any discussion involving labour policy, nor would I discuss the bonusing of farm labour. If the hon. member is asking whether the government will bonus farm labour I will say simply that I do not know. It is not in my department, and I do not think I should be asked or expected to deal with it.


James Arthur Ross: It arises as a result of the price ceiling policy, which comes under the minister's department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it does not result from the price ceiling. I do not agree with that for one moment.
The other question is one which might properly be asked me-if indeed a discussion of old age pensions is now in order. Perhaps it would be, under one or another of these items. I made very clear indeed the old age pension policy of the government when I spoke last night. Had the hon. member been in the house he would have found an answer to his question in what I said.


James Arthur Ross: I read Hansard carefully to-day, and I did not find an answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to what would happen if a majority of the provinces wanted the limit raised, I would refer my hon. friend to my statement in the house on November 14, 1941, when I said that if all, or substantially all the provinces asked to have the limit raised the government would give consideration to their request. I made it clear last night that

Supply-Finance
I was not saying that such consideration would be favourable. I am simply saying that consideration would be given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That situation has not arisen?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; that situation has not arisen. Then, with respect to Manitoba I would say that it, in conjunction with some other provinces, has sought an amendment to the old age pensions regulations permitting it to pay supplementary allowances to old age pensioners. I understand the supplementary allowance Manitoba proposes to pay is $1.25.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister said last night that changes in old age pensions increases would be one of the things which would cause inflation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that is quite correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That does not follow, because if the total amount of $31,000,000 paid out by the federal government were increased by twenty-five per cent that increase would amount to only $7,700,000-and possibly not quite that much.
On the other hand, these people are certainly entitled to some consideration. Everything else has gone up in price. How in the world can they live on less than a dollar a day? As some hon. members said last night, this is one of the things which is bad for the morale of our people and our troops.
The minister said last night that this was a matter for the provincial governments. How does he justify that statement, in view of what was said by the Premier of Ontario, as reported in to-day's Globe and Mailt This is the report:
Mothers' allowances are provincial and old age pensions a federal responsibility, he told the house. "A survey is being made and allowances will be increased *where investigation indicates need for increased allowance on the basis of an approved budget-"
And so on.
Then the report continues:
The government, the Premier said, proposes to examine all the 59,000 eases on its files and increase grants according to the need. Meanwhile, the dominion was considering lower age limits and increasing maximum pensions from $20 to $30 monthly.
Those are the words of the Premier of Ontario, and I hope what he has said is true. But bis statement does not seem to be the same as that made by the Minister of Finance last night, in which he pointed out that this was a purely provincial matter.
Has the dominion government supervision over the regulations made by the administrative branches in the various provinces? It has
come to my notice that regulations contrary to the federal act respecting old age pensions are being made, and that these regulations are in many instances to the disadvantage of the pensioners. In my view the federal government should have supervision, to see to it that there is no possibility of injustice. Many people are receiving cost-of-living bonus, while others are having increases made in their salaries. Large numbers are being given assistance of one kind or another. But in this instance we find these poor, old pepole who are unable to do anything for themselves, but who must continue to live on the pittance they are given. It is a crime to permit such a condition in this country. In view of the small amount that is involved, surely the government can do something about this matter. The premier of Ontario has indicated that he is willing to do something.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume the Minister of Finance has made his position clear on old age pensions and does not want to say anything further.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; I think I have covered it.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Has the minister or his department made any representations to the provinces for larger payments, particularly to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? The discussion here has been upon the basis of payment of $20 a month to old age pensioners. The average payment in Nova Scotia has been around $14; in Prince Edward Island it is much less. In New Brunswick I believe it is also less than in Nova Scotia. Requests for higher payments have been coming from the different provinces, and I should like to know if his department has made any direct representations to the provinces to pay the full monthly pension of $20. I have great sympathy for the old age pensioners and the difficulties they are now experiencing. Representations were made to me by some of the old age pensioners in Nova Scotia who have sons overseas that their pensions had been reduced because they were receiving assigned pay and allowances. When I first heard this complaint I would not believe it because it appeared so unreasonable, but I found that it was so. The Minister of Finance told us last night that the first responsibility of the federal government is the carrying on and the financing of the war rather than the payment of pensions. There is a tremendous deficit in his department. We were in the same position in Nova Scotia when we were first endeavouring to put old age pensions into effect; we had a deficit and we had to delay paying old age pensions. I think that
Supply-Finance

Nova Scotia and the other provinces should immediately increase the old age pension to the full amount of $20 under the present act. I contend that old age pensions should be further increased to $25 or $30 a month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No such representations have been made by the dominion government to the government of any province. The matter is regarded as being within the administrative jurisdiction of the provinces, and the dominion government has not made representations with regard to lowering or raising the scale. My impression of the speech from the throne delivered to the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia is that they intend to make a supplemental allowance of $5 a month.


Percy Chapman Black: If supplemental allowance is made payable will it be necessary to amend the old age pensions legislation? AVill that be necessary in order to pay more than $20 a month? I have heard the statement that it is not for the provinces to pay more than $20 a month, because it is prohibited by the old age pensions legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has not been following this matter very carefully. On November 14, 1941, I stated to the House of Commons that if any province desired the regulations amended so that any supplemental allowance would not be regarded as income and thereby reduce the amount which the dominion could legally contribute, they would be so amended. The Department of Justice advised that the regulations could be amended in respect of one province at a time, and they have been amended with respect to several provinces, including I think Nova Scotia. If it has not been done in connection with that province, it is being done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The position with regard to old age pensions seems to be that the minister takes the view that no further contribution should1 be made by the dominion authorities. He contends that since the coffers of the provinces are so overflowing, they ought to assume this responsibility in this time of war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the government deficit being so great, speaking for myself I am bound to say that there is a good deal of common sense in that attitude. I know in New Brunswick government financing has never been so easy since confederation. This is due in large measure to the generosity of this government in dealing with the province when it vacated certain fields of taxation. The province was treated most generously. Instead of this surplus being used for a purpose such

as this, it is being diverted to other fields of endeavour, and the old people are not getting one cent of benefit.
I think the minister has a good deal of justification for his stand1, but that is not helping the situation of the old age pensioners. While the governments continue to fail to act, the old age pensioners are feeling the squeeze of the economic situation. Perhaps the discussion which has taken place here will have some effect upon the provincial governments, but I do not know. I think they will all have to assume their responsibilities. If this were peace time, I would urge the minister to act, but perhaps if we were not burdened with war this situation would not arise. I will not say anything more about old age pensions.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of order in council, P.C. 1774, passed on March 9, 1942, which authorized the appointment of these inspectors in connection with the administration of the cost-of-living bonus order. I would ask him as a good Britisher if he can in his heart and conscience justify the administration of justice on the basis of section 2, paragraph (b), of this order in council? In order to clarify the position, I will read part of the order. This section reads:
2. Any person authorized by the Minister of Labour to act as an inspector shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:
(a)	to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place-
I do not object to that; that is the right of entry given to these inspectors.
(b)	to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions of the wartime wages and cost-of-living bonus order-
Two other orders in council are mentioned.
-are complied with in any such premises or place.
That is giving the right to an inspector to go in and hold a preliminary inquiry, or an enquete as they call it in Quebec. It is not a judicial inquiry, simply an inquiry by a prosecuting official. You are approaching the third degree, but you have not reached it, However, in the next paragraph you reach the position of having the third degree. Listen to this:
(c)	to examine orally, either alone or in the presence of any other person as he thinks fit-
Cross-examination; that is what that means. -with respect to any matters under the wartime wages and cost-of-living bonus order-
Other orders in council are mentioned.
-every person whom he finds in such premises or place or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been employed pursuant to the provisions of the wartime wages and eost-of-living bonus order-

Supply-Finance
He has the right to put them through the third degree.
-and to require every person to be so examined and to sign a declaration of the truth in respect of such matters in which he is examined.
I might have to go through a grilling at the hands of an inspector without the benefit of counsel's protection and without the benefit of reserving my rights in law whatever they may be, and if I do not reply I am guilty of an offence. If I do not sign a declaration which will estop me in the courts in the case of a prosecution from denying its truth, I am guilty of an offence under this order. How can the minister justify a power like that? I need only to state the case, I think, for every member of this house who believes in the fundamental .principles of British justice to see how flagrant this is. It is a fundamental principle of British justice that a man is innocent until1 he is proven guilty and that he may not be called upon to be a witness for the prosecution to prove his own guilt. That is a violation of a fundamental principle of British justice. This sort of legislation savours of certain sections of the prohibitory laws which were enacted by certain provincial legislatures in this country in days gone by. They will shock anyone's sense of justice if one will only read them. This savours of the same character. I do not think that anybody who reads it will approve it, and I ask the minister to have it amended so as to take this power away. To continue with this kind of procedure is a violation of the fundamental principles upon which British justice is founded, which is one of the things for which we are fighting to-day. This is the method of the gestapo. That may seem to be an extreme statement, but it is approximately correct. I do not know anything about the operation of this order. I am speaking only of the principle involved. I do not know what took place in the Joy Oil case and I do not care. But I do object to these powers, and I think that the public ought to understand the powers of these inspectors and that the minister should review the whole situation.
Before I resume my seat, let me say that I am much in the same position as the Minister of Finance with regard to these supplementary estimates. I have been awaiting an opportunity to take up a particular subject which I am in honour bound to take up, namely, the position of the transportation facilities between the mainland and Prince Edward1 Island. In order to do my duty and carry out my word to a substantial number of people in that province I must make some
remarks on this supplementary estimate when it comes up. It has not been called yet. I do not think any complaint ought to be made by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance if those of us who have been waiting patiently, remaining more or less silent until a particular item is called, discuss a matter in which we are greatly interested when the item comes up. I do not think there will be any great violation of the rights of anybody if these supplementary estimates are not passed to-day. I sympathize with the minister in his desire to get them through. Every minister desires that. But the whole thing goes back to this, that the main estimates for the last fiscal year, of which these are supplementaries, were never adequately discussed because there was no opportunity. That position ought to be cured for this session.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I would ask the minister to elaborate further on his reply to questions with regard to the relations between this government and the province of Manitoba concerning old age pensions. In reply to questions already asked both in the house to-day and on the order paper the minister has referred only to the requests of the Manitoba government for amendments to the regulations to permit that province to pay a supplemental allowance to old age pensioners without its being charged as additional income. As the minister may know, when the government of Manitoba proposed to pay this additonal amount of $1.25 a month it was referred to by the government of Manitoba as the province's share of a proposed $5 increase, and both in the press and, I understand, in conferences that took place with people in Manitoba who were interested and called on the government, the impression was given that the Manitoba government would press this government to grant the payment of an additional $3.75 to all old age and blind pensioners in that province. I should like to know whether a request was made specifically for that amount of money, and, if so, whether any reply was given apart from that which the minister has already given to my questions on the order paper concerning the amending of the regulations.
One of the reasons why I should like to have a question such as that answered specifically is that it seems to me that the old people are unnecessarily being tossed back and forth from the provincial governments to the federal government. I listened veiy closely to the minister's statement last night, part of which he has repeated to-day, in which he declared that it is the view of the govern-

Supply-Finance

ment that the primary responsibility concerning the old1 age pensions rests with the provinces. I am sure he knows that in many, if not in all of the provincial legislatures of this country the very opposite position is stated with equal vigour and determination. That happened as I have already pointed out in the province of Manitoba, where the citizens pressed for an increase in the old age pension, and the provincial government said:	All
right, we will pay our share of a $5 increase, but the responsibility for the remainder rests with the federal government. I understand that even those provinces which have already granted a supplemental allowance of $5 a month have made it quite clear that in their view the primary responsibility for making any increase rests with this government. It seems to me that our old people and the young folks who are interested in them have cause to be concerned oyer this tossing of the responsibility from the provincial legislatures to this government and now back to the provincial legislatures. It would serve a good purpose if we could have a definite statement from the minister as to the correspondence and conversations passing between this government and, shall we say, the province of Manitoba, for example, to find out just where matters stand.
I agree heartily with the suggestion made a while ago-it has been made on several occasions, but was repeated this afternoon by the hon. member for Cumberland'-to the effect that this government would be well advised to approach the provincial governments with a view to getting together, not to find ways and means of how the responsibility can be passed from one government to the other, but to find ways and means of taking positive action to raise the amount of the pension.
I feel, too, that I must join with those who have already protested against referring to the necessity of sacrifice for the sake of the war effort by these old people over seventy who are being asked to live on $20 a month or less. We recognize the need for sacrifices in the community at large, but surely the place to put the burden is not on the shoulders of these old people. I am satisfied, like those who have spoken before me, that it would aid materially the morale of our fighting forces, and the feeling of the people in general that when this war is over, some of the better things we are fighting for are to be accomplished, if an increase could nowr be made in the amount paid to our old people. Therefore, I would ask, despite the kind of replies which have already been made by the minister, that he give us a more complete statement on the relations between this

government and the government of Manitoba in this matter, and indicate whether there is not some possibilty of the federal government trying to bring the various provincial governments together to discuss with this government, I say again, not ways and means of avoiding payment of an increase, but ways and means of taking positive steps to raise the amount now being paid.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Before the minister replies I wish to ask him something which bears on the same point, and arises out of letters received from overseas. Down through the years of the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act, extended to include pensions to certain of the blind, there has been a definite discrimination, as it appears to some, against old people who saved their pennies in the days of plenty and provided themselves with a small home; then, when the act became operative, they assigned these small homes in trust to the provincial gpvernments. I mention this matter because the minister has made his position perfectly clear, and I believe that considerable good will come out of this discussion. I hope that it will result in something being done on behalf of these old people who have taxes to pay. I know of many cases in which the boys overseas are trying to send home an extra dollar or two to pay taxes on these homes, because one of the regulations requires that a pensioner in receipt of $20. must keep the taxes on his property paid up, and that is an utter impossibility under present conditions. I trust that, in any new approach which may be made to the general problem, the minister will keep in mind the position of this large number of men and women who are living on $20 a month and are trying also to keep the taxes paid on their little properties, as they arc definitely committed to do.
Mr. 1LSLEY: I will bear that suggestion in mind, in the event of the regulations being revised. Some revision does take place from time to time.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North-Centre, I do not think I could give any more complete answer than I gave in writing to a question asked by him. The answer is found in Hansard, at page 1718; it, shows exactly what the course of the correspondence has been between the dominion government and the government of Manitoba. So far as I know, there have been no oral communications.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it true, then, that subsequently to January 20, 1943, as referred to in the answer to which the minister has just

Supply-Finance
referred, there has been no request from the Premier or the government of Manitoba to this government to pay an additional $3.73 per pensioner?


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as I know there has been no request. It would be unnecessary, I should think, because that was the original request of the province, as is indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that after the increase of $1.25 was made by Manitoba, a statement was made through the press of that province, and, I happen to know, by the government to a committee of two clergymen and a rabbi who called upon them, that subsequently, that is when representatives of the government of Manitoba were in Ottawa recently on another point, they would press_ further for this $3.75 increase.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They might have talked with someone else; they did not talk to me; and I do not know just why they would, either, because our position was made abundantly clear and definite, and so was theirs, at a very early stage of the proceedings.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to ask the minister about the last part of a statement which is reported to have been made by the premier of Ontario. First of all, he says that it is a provincial matter; and, second, that he proposed to examine these cases on the files and increase the grants in some 59,000 cases; also, that the dominion government is considering lowering the old age limits and increasing maximum pensions from $20 to $30 monthly. These are statements made by the premier of Ontario. I wish to know, first, has any request for legislation come from the provincial government to the dominion government, and, second, is the statement of the premier of Ontario according to the facts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what the premier of Ontario said. I cannot say whether the report is a correct one or not, and I do not want to deal with a report which may or may not be accurate. I will answer, however, any question which the hon. gentleman puts on his own behalf.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the premier of Ontario asked for any legislation to increase old age pensions? Is the dominion government considering lowering the age limit for old age pensions and increasing the amount from $20 to $30 a month?


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the first inquiry, I believe that the government of Ontario is one of the governments which requested consideration of an increase in the upper limit, I do not know the figure, or
whether any figure was suggested in the correspondence; but the government of Ontario did request, according to my recollection, that the dominion legislation be amended in such a way as to raise the upper limit.
With regard to the second inquiry, which was whether this government is considering an increase in the upper limit and a lowering of the age at which applicants would be eligible, as regards the upper limit I made my position perfectly clear last night and again to-day. I made that clear over and over again.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That answer is no?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The answer is no. That must be taken with the qualification contained in my statement of November 14, 1941, which I have repeated to the house time after time.
As to the other part of the question, whether we have been considering the lowering of the eligible age, I am under the impression that, it would involve a very large increase in expenditure, and we have not given it consideration since the beginning of the war.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The whole question was answered by the minister's speech in the House of Commons. I take it that the government do not intend to give any increase in old age pensions during the war.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I listened carefully to what the Minister of Finance said yesterday in regard to cost-of-living bonus, especially as applied to old age pensions, and he was quite emphatic. He said that the cost-of-living bonus depends primarily for its administration on the provincial governments, and that therefore the onus is upon them. Probably that is true from a legal point of view. But it must also be clearly understood that since the war started prices have tremendously increased. Responsibility for that cannot be placed upon the proyincial governments; it rests definitely upon the federal government, and especially upon the Minister of Finance, because under the War Measures Act he could have prevented the rise in prices. To a great degree he has done so, but whether he has succeeded or not is his responsibility. The provincial governments had absolutely no control in regard to the rise in the price of food or other necessaries; that came as a result of the war. I cannot see, therefore, how the minister can throw the entire responsibility for that increased cost upon the provincial governments.
It is true also that as these prices have increased the purchasing power of the $20 a month which the old age pensioners receive is reduced accordingly. If the provincial governments endeavour to offset that reduction by
Supply-Finance

an increase of $5 a month in the pension, as some provincial governments have, they must provide the money out of their own revenues. There has been an agreement with the federal government to forgo certain sources of revenue in that regard. Some of the provinces have a surplus, but the surplus has resulted only from the fact that nearly all provincial governments have economized in every possible way. They have eliminated a great many of their social services; they have restricted the construction of roads and other public works. In any event these surpluses are not so very large. For the minister merely to say that it is not the responsibility of the federal government and to leave it at that is not right. There is a moral obligation. When prices have increased and our old people are still expected to get along with the pittance formerly allowed them, it is a shame.
Let me give just one instance. The other jay I was at home out west for a few days when an elderly gentleman came to my home. He is sixty-seven years of age, and his wife is sixty-five. He had been farming in that district for forty years. Owing to one adversity after another the mortgage company had foreclosed and kicked him off his place and he was going to have to apply for old age pension. His wife is an invalid. To expect a man like that to exist on $25 a month, as it is in Alberta, is just not human.
The minister raised his hands in horror at the suggestion of some hon. members that something be done in this regard. He said we should not bring up a question of this kind now when we are so busy fighting a war, that he could not possibly carry on the tremendous financial burdens resulting from the conduct of the war and take care of all these other things as well. I think it is pretty well understood by all members that there have been tremendous increases in salaries since this war started. And some exceedingly large profits have been made. I suggest to the minister-I say this advisedly -that if he has only a limited amount of money to spend for this purpose, he should look around at some of the expenditures that are now being made and take a little bit away from those who are getting such tremendous amounts and redistribute it to old people who are really in need.
Not a great deal was said the other day about the increase in the price of meals. Restaurants were allowed to raise their prices to the extent of five cents for the beverage. I am not arguing at the moment whether that is a good or a bad thing, but it does result in a considerable profit to those concerned. It may have been fair enough if the minister had said that he would not allow that increased

price to benefit those individuals but would take it and apply it to old age pensions. That might be an extreme step to take, but when we realize that our war effort is being interfered with from the point of view of morale by our failure to take proper care of some of the old people in this country, especially those who have sons fighting in this war, I think some consideration should be given to the matter. May I add that the elderly gentleman who came to my house when I was out west had a son in the air force. The son came with him, and as they left my house the young fellow said to me, " Well, if this is the thing we are fighting for, I have not much encouragement in going to war.1'
This is a question that must be tackled. We cannot just idly say that it is not our responsibility. It is a national responsibility. The increased cost of living is due to the war and is a national problem. The minister and the house must realize that and take appropriate steps in the matter.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Will the minister
give serious consideration to a suggestion that has already been made by several hon. members, namely, that he call together representatives of the provinces in order to discuss with them this question of old age pensions? If means cannot be found to increase the pension, the situation could perhaps be eased by modification of the regulations regarding the means test and regarding the deductions that are made from the $20 a month. Will the minister give consideration to that aspect of it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the question of raising the upper limit, I have stated during the past year on several occasions, though I do not remember just when, that I did not care to take the initiative. As to the regulations, we are in continual correspondence with the provinces in that connection, and it is a matter worthy of consideration as to whether there should be a conference on those regulations, but I do not know whether or not we will have one. Nothing is more troublesome than this system of administering a pensions scheme; I wish hon. gentlemen would get that firmly in their minds. This participation of two jurisdictions, the provincial governments and the federal government, is most unsatisfactory from every pont of view and has been from the very beginning. There is also the further complication that there are nine provincial governments involved, not just one provincial government with which the dominion must work. The whole question is full of difficulty, differences and issues of a minor nature which arise from time to time, a good many of

S upply-Fina nee
which have to do with the regulations. About all I can say is that the suggestion is worthy of consideration.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Could not these
difficulties be ironed out better at a conference than by correspondence 7


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, ever since the conference on the Sirois report I have been a little hesitant about conferences.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has said
that he did not wish to take the initiative in calling a conference to do anything in connection with raising the amount or lowering the age limit. Is it not true that the initiative in this matter was taken by this government back in the middle twenties?
If that is so, why the change? Why was it proper for the government to take the initiative then but not proper for the government to take the initiative now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That question has been
raised and answered previously, before the hon. gentleman came into this house. It was raised over a year ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who made the same request. The reason that appeals to me is that in 1926 we had no old age pension system at all in the country. We had a dominion government in a very good financial position-


Mr. MacINNIS:: But politically in a
bad position.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There may be something in that; I was not here at the time. At any rate the financial position of the dominion government in relation to that of the provincial governments was altogether different from the position to-day. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested that we should go ahead with our plans and tty to get the provinces to lower the age limit. At that time I said I did not consider it was the business of this government to do that in time of war, for it was virtually swinging a club over them and putting on strong political pressure, which we did not propose to do. I said at that time that the initiative would have to come from them, and not from us.


Gordon Graydon: The minister may have answered this question while I was out of the chamber, and if so he need not answer it again because I can look it up in Hansard. Last evening he indicated that he had given some intimation to the various provinces with respect to the old age pension, and I think he said that there had come from some of the provinces a request that the amount of the pension be increased. I do not think at that
time he mentioned, what provinces had replied or what provinces were agreeable to increasing the pension on the basis which he submitted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not a question of reply. The hon. gentleman does not mean what provinces have replied; for we have not written to the provinces at all in the first instance. The hon. gentleman wants to know what provinces have raised the question with us.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I mean.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I think the present status is that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have raised the question.


Gordon Graydon: They have intimated that they would like to have the pension increased?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: Then I think the minister said that if a substantial number of the provinces-


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I said all or substantially all, which is veiy different.


Angus MacInnis: I thought this matter would be finished during the time I was absent from the chamber. I had something to say on the question last evening and did not intend to take part in the discussion to-day, but as I entered the chamber a moment ago I heard the hon. member for South York make some references to the means test. I suggest to the minister and to the members of this house that in all cases where the amount of the pension or assistance given depends upon the economic circumstances of the individual, the means test should be broadened very considerably. People who have worked hard and tried to save something have found that what they have saved is a detriment to them instead of an asset, while people who have taken no care at all to provide for themselves when they became indigent or in difficult circumstances managed to obtain very easily whatever was coming to them. I know of men and women who have worked hard; who have raised families and tried to educate them to the best of their ability; who have tried to acquire a little home, and who may have a little money in the bank. Then when they can no longer work and have not enough to keep them, they find they must use up all their assets before they can get any assistance. This puts a premium on shiftlessness and makes it more difficult to get people to put something aside or to help themselves. Until that is changed people are not going to have a stake in this country that will be sufficient to induce them to try
Supply-P.E.l. Car Ferry

to build up something even better. I suggest that when a conference is called this point be taken into consideration, because I am satisfied that it is fundamental.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals.
US. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1942-43 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the National Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the National Company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the National Company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the National Company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1942-further amount required, $191,095.36.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
afraid I shall be obliged to take up some of the time of the committee to discuss certain matters arising out of this important item, and in doing so I shall review some of the history of the relationship between the province of Prince Edward Island and the confederation.
It will be recalled that Prince Edward Island was not one of the original provinces of the confederation. Although the conference was held at Charlottetown prior to 1867, Prince Edward Island did not come in until about 1873, and it came in under the provisions of an imperial order in council and the British North America Act. The order in council is dated June 28, 1873. It contains as a schedule an address to Her Majesty the Queen, which states the terms under which Prince Edward Island would enter confederation. Among those terms of union was the one which stated that the dominion government was to assume and defray all the charges in connection with certain services. It then goes on to enumerate certain specific services with which I am not particularly concerned, but it includes an efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer, by the dominion, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the dominion.
I submit that "efficient service" in that instance means modern, up-to-date service. That was the understanding upon which Prince Edward Island entered the union at that time. I believe it is fair to say that from 1873 down to 1915 that undertaking was not carried into fulfilment by any govem-

ment in Canada, especially with respect to winter transportation service. With regard to the summer service during that period, I do not think that in days gone by there was great complaint, having regard to the progress made in steam navigation and steam transportation. But I well remember as long as forty-nine years ago having seen with my own eyes passengers from Prince Edward Island having to traverse the strait of Northumberland1 in the old-time ice boat. I need only recall that period to indicate that at that time, at all events, there was no efficient method of transportation during the winter season between the little island province and the dominion.
The position stood thus until 1911 or thereabouts, when Sir Robert Borden, in the course of an election tour in that year, visited Prince Edward Island and gave the definite undertaking that if his part}'- were returned to power in the approaching election he would build and operate a steam ferry between the mainland and the island. I do not propose to refer to the demands for a tunnel, and things of that nature, because so far as I know they never got beyond the stage of academic discussions.
There is no doubt that as the result of the action of Sir Robert Borden, for the first time there was a moderately adequate fulfilment of the terms of confederation as set out in the address to Her Majesty the Queen in 1873. As the result of Sir Robert Borden's action the car ferry Prince Edward Island was built. That ferry operated with more or less success until about fifteen or twenty years ago

I have not the exact date, when she was more or less condemned, not as unseaworthy, but as inadequate for the service. The government of that day-I have forgotten which government it was-built the car ferry Charlottetown. I shall have something to say with respect to the loss of the Charlottetown later on. At the moment however suffice it to say that the island in my opinion had reasonably good transportation facilities from 1915 to 1941, first through the car ferry Prince Edward Island and then through the Charlottetown.
It is true that there was a great deal of objection to the cost of transportation. The car ferry was operated for the account of the dominion government by the then Department of Railways and Canals, now the Department of Transport, and the cost to the country was substantial. But any deficit in operation was a charge on the treasury by reason of the undertaking given in 1873, and I believe no one has raised any question with respect to that expenditure. In some years

Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry
it has been larger, and in others smaller. But there has been a good deal of criticism of the rates charged for the transportation of freight, and at one time for the transportation of motor vehicles. From time to time there have been reductions in rates and some amelioration in conditions, because it must be	borne	in mind that the	cost oftransportation, aside from that borne by the treasury in the payment of deficits, in most cases came upon the shippers of products. In order	to get to	their markets	on the
mainland they were obliged-I believe it is fair to say this-to assume the cost of this extra transportation via the car ferry.
That condition was never properly righted, and the	time	came	when, owing	to theincrease in tourist traffic between the mainland and the island, the facilities were inadequate to	take	care	of the traffic	offering,
especially in the summer season. An effort was made to improve that condition when the Wood Island ferry was established1. It is now a matter of history and record that the efforts to establish that ferry were in a measure frustrated by reason of the fact that the vessels acquired for that purpose were, one after the other, requisitioned by the naval department. It was only within recent months that that service was established and maintained. No one has ever suggested that the establishment of the Wood Island ferry, or its predecessor the Hochelaga running from Pictou to the island, was anything more than supplementary to the main service.
In the summer of 1941 the Charlottetown was ordered to dry dock for her annual overhaul, and it is a matter of great misfortune that in that year she was lost off the coast of Nova Scotia. Since that time, in common with other hon. members, I have been asked by commercial interests and others in Prince Edward Island to lay before the government and the house the position of citizens in Prince Edward Island with respect to inadequacy of transportation facilities. I did so at great length on one occasion, and I have no apology for so doing. This season the situation has been aggravated by the severity of the weather conditions, and in the past several months the transportation facilities between the island and the mainland have been wholly inadequate. I think that is putting the matter quite mildly.
I wish to speak moderately on this subject; but I think it is inexcusable, if I may use that term, that we should be no further ahead than to have had a promise made by the minister in reply to a question asked by the senior member for Queens to the effect that plans were being prepared for a new car ferry, which would be built on an if, as and when basis.
That is not good enough for the province of Prince Edward Island. We have been told that it is impossible to get priorities for the
machinery and that no yard should be asked to build this new vessel. But there have been many occasions where moneys have been appropriated for peace-time activities which interfered with the war effort. I need but refer to the Montreal terminal, where millions have been spent on what is really a peace-time undertaking, while this situation on the island has been left unattended to.
I know that the government must have been presented with the representations which have been made from time to time by public bodies. The whole thing culminated this winter in a series of representations by public bodies, and the legislature of Prince Edward Island has gone on record unanimously as demanding that the rights of the citizens of that province, as outlined in the province's magna charta to which I have referred, shall be granted by the federal authorities. This has been followed up by a multitude of resolutions by nearly every board of trade on the island. Only recently there has been an exchange of correspondence between certain public and semipublic bodies in the province and the Prime Minister. I do not propose to place this on the record because it would take too long, but I do make a plea to the government to expedite the building of a new car ferry for the Northumberland strait.
I do not think all the avenues have been explored by the government or the Department of Transport to attain this end. I used to marvel at the fact that here was a province represented in this chamber by four members who support the administration. I am bound to say that so far as my own observations are concerned, up to this fourth session of this parliament the only public reference that has been made to this matter has been on two occasions. One was a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Queens, and the other was a speech made recently by the hon. member for Kings. I would have wished that these gentlemen had been a little more vocal with regard to this matter, especially since one of them sits on the treasury benches. I have no doubt that he will have something to say about it this afternoon.
The reason given-I shall not call it an excuse because I think there is some reason for it-is that the nation is at war. The nation is at war .but civilian life must go on. When we have an isolated island province such as Prince Edward Island it is the duty of the government to use every possible means within its power to see to it that a situation such as I have outlined is taken care of. There
Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry

is no question about the financial ability of the country to build this boat. I question very much if the government has exhausted every effort to find a shipyard which will undertake the construction of this ship. I assume that either the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Transport will reply. When he does so, I hope he will be good enough to tell the committee what avenues have been explored in connection with having this ship constructed.
In justice to a large body of our citizens, this must be done. If it is not done, these people will continue to suffer economic and other inconveniences which they ought not to be asked to put up with any longer. They have put up with them long enough. I make the plea to the ministry to use the utmost diligence to provide the ferry transportation which the people of Prince Edward Island demand and which they require if they are to continue to function properly, to do their share in making a contribution to the food supply of Canada and to get that food supply across to wherever it can be useful.
That little province of 100,000 people has sent more volunteers per capita to the war than any other province.


Percy Chapman Black: Except Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The two
provinces are in the same military district, and it is quite difficult to separate the voluntary enlistments of the two. Their record in voluntary enlistments for active service overseas has been magnificent. The little province of Prince Edward Island has no great industrial corporations within its boundaries and has practically no industry apart from agriculture, but it has gone over the top in the early days of every war loan campaign. That little province has been among the first of all provinces in its contributions to the Red Cross. In these days of grave national crisis that little province has exemplified the best there is of citizenship. I do suggest, moderately I hope, that Prince Edward Island has not had a fair deal at the hands of the federal government in connection with this transportation problem. I will not emphasize that any further.
There is something else to which I desire to refer to-night, namely, the loss of the ferry Charlottetown. I hold in my hand a copy of sessional paper 150, brought down in response to an order of this house made on February 8, on a motion by the hon. member for Cumberland, for a copy of the findings of Mr. Justice Archibald, with respect to the sinking of the ferry SS. Charlottetown off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1941. I make no apology

for referring to this matter this afternoon, because it is part and parcel of the subject matter with which I am dealing.
An investigation into the sinking of the Charlottetown was held in the months of December, 1941, and January and February, 1942, by Mr. Justice Archibald, as a wreck commissioner, assisted by certain naval officers and nautical assessors. Certain questions were submitted to that court.
I should preface my remarks in this connection by stating that the Charlottetown left Borden, Prince Edward Island, on the morning of June 16, 1941, on her way to Saint John, New Brunswick, for annual overhaul and repair. The finding of the court is that she was seaworthy at the time of her departure.
The findings of the court of inquiry indicate the type of ship the Charlottetown was. She had an indicated horse-power of 8,000; her speed was 15 knots, with eight boilers in use, and the dimensions of the ship are given.
It appears that when off Sambro light or near thereby she struck a rock or ledge, as a result of which she ultimately became a total loss. I will not go into the details of the findings, but I desire to read to the committee certain of the latter portion of the court's findings and I refer hon. members who have seen this report to paragraph 18:
18.	The ss. Charlottetown remained afloat after the striking a period of 32 hours and 13 minutes.
Please keep that in mind. Then paragraph 19.
19.	The vessel became a total loss by sinking on the evening of June 18, 1941, at 7.07 o'clock. At that time she was being towed by motor boats toward Port Mouton and sank in 16 fathoms of water-
In a certain latitude and longitude. Then mark this well. It is the finding of the court:
20.	The court is of opinion that the master either failed to realize the seriousness of the damage to the vessel and the necessity of immediate action to control the water and to secure assistance if the vessel was to be saved or that he was mistakenly confident that notwithstanding the damage he could take the vessel to a safe port. It is difficult to understand why the master did not within a very few minutes after the striking-
It was more than thirty hours after the striking that she actually sank. It goes on:
when she had reached deep water stop or even anchor the vessel and ascertain the damage suffered. It is apparent from the evidence t9ven particularly that of the chief engineer that the ship had suffered serious damage and that he had so advised the master. Notwithstanding this information there is no evidence that the master went below until the evening of June 17.

Supply-PJZ.I. Car Ferry
That was approximately twelve hours after the accident occurred. That is a factor to be kept in mind. The wreck commissioner proceeds to make this rather startling statement:
The method employed by the master in securing assistance seems to have been casual and inadequate. It must be observed that in the absence of a wireless system or any other method of communicating from the ship to the shore, it is difficult to understand why the ship's boat was not sent to shore immediately with the proper messages and instructions for assistance. Instead of doing so the master did not make any effort to establish communication with the shore until the vessel arrived at Little Hope buoy at 12.20 p.m. At that time a fisherman in a boat was at the buoy and to him the master gave a verbal message for transmission to the Canadian National Railways office at Moncton. This message he did not send. It was not until 4.30 o'clock in the afternoon of the 17th that a lifeboat left for the shore in charge of the first mate, who had with him the chief engineer, the chief steward and a crew of 17 men. When he reached shore that evening he sent a number of motor boats to the ship after having communicated with the general manager of the Canadian National Railways at Moncton and the district superintendent at Halifax and advising them of the ship's condition and the need for assistance, but notwithstanding this message it would seem that these officers must have had inadequate information as to the ship's peril; otherwise a greater effort would have been made in getting effective assistance to the distressed vessel without the lapse of a great length of time. It is difficult to understand why efforts were not made to get tugboats or other boats capable of giving assistance from the nearby ports of Shelburne, Loekport, Liverpool or Lunenburg. Having regard also to the condition of the vessel and the uncertainty as to the time of arrival of assistance it is difficult to understand why the vessel was not given in tow to motor boats during the night of June 17 or early on June 18 instead of waiting until 1.35 p.m. on the 18th.
I suggest that those findings of fact indicate that this boat could have been saved if the master had taken adequate measures. I desire to call the attention of the committee to finding 22:
In the opinion of the court the loss of the ss. Charlottetown resulted from the damage she suffered when she struck Devastation shoal and from the failure to take adequate measures to secure the safety of the ship after the striking and from the failure to obtain prompt and efficient assistance.
That responsibility was that of the master, and he wholly failed to assume that responsibility. Now listen to this. This is the summing up of the court:
The court is of opinion that the damage sustained by the ss. Charlottetown was caused by the wrongful act or default of her master, John Lefurgy Read in the following particulars:
(a)	He did not choose a proper or safe course in the weather conditions prevailing.
And reference is made to the answers given to questions 7, 8, 9 and 11.
(b)	His navigation of the vessel on this course was faulty and improper for the reasons given in the answers to questions 9, 11, 12 and 13.
I have not sketched the answers to those questions. I am contenting myself with giving the findings of the court of inquiry.
(c)	For the reasons given in the answers to questions 17 and 20 the master did not take the necessary and proper and adequate measures after the striking to ensure the safety of the vessel and to obtain assistance.
The court does not find that the damage and subsequent loss of the ss. Charlottetown was caused or contributed to by any other person or persons.
They go on to direct that the master's certificate be suspended for a period of six months.
There can be no doubt, I think, that the findings of the court were the findings of a legal and juridical tribunal. The master had the assistance of very able counsel. He was properly defended, and there should be no doubt in the minds of anybody that the master and the master alone was to blame.
Now what happened? The master's certificate was suspended. He was either dismissed or permitted to resign from his position with the Canadian National railway system. He was, however, given a pension of $154 a month, and he has been drawing it ever since.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What for?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never understood that a man who was guilty of negligence, malfeasance, nonfeasance or any other kind of wrong feasance that one can imagine should be rewarded by being superannuated. I do not believe that is the law, and I see no justification for the payment of a pension to the master of this ship.


Percy Chapman Black: He was paid his full salary up to the time of the filing ol the commission's report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; ha was paid $400 a month up to the time of the findings of the wreck commission. A man is considered innocent until he is proved guilty, and there may be that justification for this proceeding, although it would appear to me that he ought to have been suspended by the management of the Canadian National railways immediately the ship was lost, if that was not done. That is what would have happened in connection with an ordinary commercial undertaking: a master having lost his ship, on the prima facie evidence submitted he would be suspended in the employment. Instead of that, this man was paid his full

Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry

salary for several months after the ship was lost. And when he is found guilty of negligence, guilty of malfeasance, guilty of nonfeasance, he is rewarded by being allowed to resign, shall I say-I am not quite certain on that point-and given a pension of $154 a month; and I hear that he is petitioning the government to have the sentence of the court of inquiry reviewed so that he may have his certificate given back to him.
The first point I desire to make is, that through the action of the master the Charlottetown was lost; and my second point is that, as a result of the loss of the Charlottetown in the circumstances to which I have adverted, the people of Prince Edward Island have been deprived of adequate facilities for communication between their province and the mainland. It is no use to say, "Oh, you have had the Prince Edward Island." I think I am safe in saying that the Prince Edward Island was condemned for the service years ago; she was held as a stand-by during the time when the Charlottetown was undergoing repair, but she was considered to be wholly inadequate and not fit for the purpose during all the period Charlottetown was in operation. She was recommissioned, put on this route, and what has been the result? For days the island has been without proper communication. Hundreds of carloads of freight were accumulated on the docks. I have figures here showing what the situation was. Every public body in Prince Edward Island has protested, through the maritime board of trade, the Charlottetown board of trade, the Summerside board of trade, and other boards of trade, and through the legislature itself. Most of them consider that improper treatment-I will use no stronger term-has been handed out to them by reason of the failure of the governent to provide adequate transportation facilities as required by the compact of confederation, in which they were partners.
I have no desire to carry on this debate at inordinate length. I could go into the matter in much more detail. But if I serve no other useful purpose than to call attention on the floor of this chamber to the situation which exists, and to obtain from the ministry some undertaking of a character which will tend to alleviate the situation, I shall feel amply repaid for any effort I have made, and it will redound to the benefit of the people of Prince Edward Island. I earnestly implore the minister to deal with this matter. The people of Prince Edward Island have been good enough to accept him as their representative in this house. I know he will agree with me that he owes a corresponding duty to them to

do anything and everything to remedy a situation which he knows as well as I do exists. I invite him to tell the committee exactly what the proposals of the government are in that regard.
I know he will say that, on account of the exigencies of the war, the government has not been able to get another vessel in place of the one which was lost. I agree at once that it is exceedingly difficult to find a ship of the type required for this service, but I certainly believe that there should have been more adequate provision than was made in attempting to recommission the Prince Edward Island ferry.
Therefore, without desiring to take any more of the time of the committee, and hoping I have been reasonably moderate in the statements I have made, I invite the minister to tell the people of Prince Edward Island through the medium of this committee exactly what the government proposes to do and when they may expect that proper communication of a modern character will be renewed between the island and the mainland.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: Mr. Chairman, when this committee took recess at six o'clock the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) had just concluded an appeal on behalf of residents of Prince Edward Island on account of existing transportation conditions between the island and the mainland owing to unfortunate circumstances to which I shall refer a little later. The hon. member made many exaggerated statements, of which three are out-, standing. The first was that no government since the entry of Prince Edward Island into confederation had been true to the population of the island, in the matter of providing adequate transportation services between the island and the mainland. The second was that the present ferry service is inadequate; and the third, that the people of the island were left isolated as a result of lack of attention on the part of the government in providing proper ferry facilities. I shall present a few facts and leave it to the intelligence of hon. members to judge whether governments in the past have been delinquent in their duty to the island and in the fulfilment of one of the conditions under which Prince Edward Island1 joined confederation.

Supply-PH.I. Car Ferry
As stated by the hon. gentleman, on June 26, 1873, an order in council was passed whereby Prince Edward Island was made a part of the Canadian confederation. In that order in council there was this provision:
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the intercolonial railway and the railway system of the dominion.
As stated by the hon. member, from that time to 1916 the facilities for transporting mails, passengers and freight were maintained by private companies or corporations operating ferries in the summer between Summer-side. Prince Edward Island, and Point du Chene, New Brunswick, and in the winter between Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, and Pietou, Nova Scotia. During that period extending from 1873 to 1916 these services were provided by private companies subsidized by the dominion treasury.
In 1913 the dominion government decided to provide more adequate service. First, I should say that up to 1913 there was no demand for any car ferry service, for two obvious reasons: first, because there was no possibility of moving freight cars or passenger cars between the island and the mainland because the railway on the island was of a different gauge from that of the mainland. Second, there was no demand for transportation of automobiles to and from the island, because prior to that time the laws of the province prohibited the operation of motor vehicles on the island. But then a change of policy took place; in 1911 and 1912 the government decided to change the gauge of the railway on the island and bring it to standard gauge, and the .provincial laws were relaxed permitting the use of automobiles.
A ferry service was instituted which would move railway cars and automobiles. The construction of a combined passenger and car ferry which would serve in all seasons was decided upon. It was completed in 1916 and put into service between Charlottetown and Pietou until the completion of the terminal facilities. The Prince Edward Island car ferry was built by the government for that purpose at a cost of $2,280,000 and put into service.
In 1926 the Duncan commission made a report recommending that still better facilities should be provided. Those recommendations were implemented. In 1929 the then government decided that a larger and better car
ferry should be provided, and voted an appropriation of $3,500,000. In Hansard for the session of 1929 I read this item at page 3078:



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Railways-Canadian Government Railways- to provide for additional ear ferry and facilities for car ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, $3,500,000.
Mr. Manion: Would the minister explain this item?
Mr. Dunning:	It will be remembered that
one of the features of the report of the Duncan commission related to the necessity for improved ferry accommodation for Prince Edward Island. I need not go into the reasons therefor, because they have been discussed in the house on many occasions. Last year an amount was appropriated to start the work. In the meantime a careful investigation has been made with respect to the matter, so far as time and facilities would permit, by the Canadian National authorities on behalf of the department. There was a suggestion many years ago that money might be saved and better facilities afforded at lower annual charges if a tunnel were constructed between the mainland and the island. I thought it desirable to have the old reports in that connection looked up and checked by the engineers in the light of present conditions in order to see, facing as we were a considerable expenditure in any event, what were the economics of the tunnel suggestion. Another suggestion was that a causeway might be built across to the island from the mainland.
Mr. Manion: What is the distance?
Mr. Dunning:	The shortest distance across
is nine miles. The result of the investigation during the year reveals that a tunnel would cost to-day in the neighbourhood of $40,000,000. Hon. gentlemen will understand that that is not a detailed estimate, because considerable engineering work would be necessary to determine the sub-aqueous conditions.
This shows that in 1929 the government took some steps to provide adequate facilities for the service between the island and the mainland. Then	between	1929 and	1930	acontract was let	for the	construction of	acar ferry, and on March 20, 1930, the late Mr. Woodsworth	asked a	question	in thisregard, which is	reported	at page	777	of
Hansard for that year:
Mr. J. S. Woodsworth (Winnipeg North Centre):	Is it a fact that the building of the
car ferry for Prince Edward Island has been let to the province of Quebec? I have a protest from Halifax stating that the wages in Quebec are much lower than in Halifax.
Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance):	Speaking for the Minister of Railways, I can only say that the contract for the Prince Edward Island ferry was let to the lowest tenderer. My recollection is that it is the Davie Shipbuilding Company of Levis. Quebec, and, of course, the contract will contain the usual protective clauses with respect to labour.
So much for the construct ion of that car ferry, which was named the Charlottetown. It was put into service in 1931, and from that
Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry
[Stage Direction]
time until 1941 served the purpose for which it was built. In June, 1941, it was considered advisable to have considerable repairs and overhauling done to that boat, and it was ordered to Saint John for that purpose. As we all know, on June 17 it struck a rock and foundered, and it is now at the bottom of the sea.
From 1916 or 1917 to the present time the car ferry has been operated by what was at first the Canadian government railways and later the Canadian National Railways. Prior to 1938 the accounts were not segregated from those of the Canadian National Railways, but in 1938 they were segregated and the ferry continued to be operated for the Canadian government by the Canadian National Railways. From 1933 to 1942 inclusive the total deficit on the operation of the car ferry amounted to 83,959,164.99, and during the year 1942 the deficit amounted to $591,095.36. These deficits do not include provision for the depreciation of vessels or interest on the investment, with the exception of interest on a small portion of that investment which was financed by the Canadian National, amounting to $388,255.74. Prior to the end of 1942 the country's investment in the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals amounted to $6,953,681.33.
['Yes.']
Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister suggest that an operating deficit is an investment? Whoever wrote that brief does not understand proper accounting.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I never suggested that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was what the minister said.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. I said the deficit did not include provision for the depreciation of vessels or interest on the investment; that is, interest on the investment was not charged against the deficit for the year. The details of the investment are as follows: terminals at Cape Tormentine, $2,103,451.85, and at Borden, $2,840,288.82. The investment in the ferry Prince Edward Island amounts to $815,795.22. As I stated, the cost of the ferry Charlottetown was $2,189,145.44, less insurance recovered amounting to $995,000. Therefore the total capital cost is the figure I mentioned previously, $6,953,681.33.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that the
Charlottetown was insured, and the minister has said that $995,000 was recovered. When the vessel was sunk, did the government abandon all its rights to the underwriters of the insurance?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Is there no possibility of the government getting any part of the salvage now?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; that has been investigated, and it has been found that it would not be possible to salvage anything with the exception of what could be obtained from the insurance.
Since June, 1941, the service has been maintained by the ferry Prince Edward Island. It has been claimed that this boat is very old, that it has been condemned, and so on. My information is that the Prince Edward Island was in commsission continuously from 1916 to 1931, and was maintained in very good repair. After the Charlottetown was put in service, the Prince Edward Island was kept as a stand-by. Every year it was inspected by the steamship inspection board, and two or three years after the Charlottetown had been put in commission and had proven satisfactory, the Prince Edward Island was overhauled at considerable expense. Since that time it has been regularly inspected and kept in commission. In the summer of 1941 it was put in service between Cape Tormentine and Borden. During that period the service has been maintained continuously, except for three or four days last winter when either the rudder or the propeller was cracked. One Saturday the part was taken to a foundry in Charlottetown and repaired over Saturday night and Sunday, and I am told that on that occasion two and a half days were lost.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister regard the present service as adequate?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The present service, yes. I certainly regard the service of the Prince Edward Island as adequate for present needs.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the view of hon. members from Prince Edward Island?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think it is. I have
no doubt of it, because with the exception of two or three days the car ferry has been operating, and has been transporting all the freight and passengers offered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
adequate information, because I have reports to show that at one time there were 100 loaded cars awaiting transshipment, and that those cars were held up.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not that information. In 1942 the Prince Edward Island made 3,886 trips, while the Charlottetown in 1940 had made only 2,772. The following is a table which will show some information with

Supply-PEI. Car Ferry
respect to the traffic handled by the Prince
Edward Island in 1942 in 1940:
Tons of revenue freight
carried	
Number of passengers
taken	
Number of vehicles, exclusive of railway
equipment	
Number of loaded
freight cars	
Number of passenger train cars	
and the Charlottetown
Prince
Edward
Island 1942	Charlottetown 1940
479,600	356,071
121,272	117,977
9,465	25,759
22,449	19,449
3,055	2,117
After June, 1941, and during 1942, repairs on the Prince Edward Island were made to the extent of $102,663.52. In the summertime one of the Scotias operating from Canso was assigned as a stand-by to the Charlottetown. In the wintertime there was no other car ferry available on the north American continent, and for that reason provisions were made to detail an icebreaker to take care of passengers and mail, in the event of an. emergency.


Richard Burpee Hanson: During this last winter?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there any icebreaker there?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Not in attendance all the time, because the icebreakers were busy cutting ice in the gulf. But an icebreaker was to be assigned whenever necessity arose. And during the very short time the car ferry was disabled it was not thought absolutely necessary to send an icebreaker for two days to that 'locality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a matter of fact no icebreaker was there at all last winter.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There was no icebreaker as a stand-by, because last winter icebreakers in the gulf of St. Lawrence were very busy. They did work in that vicinity.
I admit, however, it would be much better if we could have a second car ferry as a stand-by all the time. That was the intention of the government, and it still is. I submit that all governments since confederation have done their duty by providing a most adequate service. From confederation to 1916 they gave the service the people of the island wanted; and I have no information that they asked for any service other than the one which they received, and which was subsidized.
With the advent of modern transportation, improved railways, tourist traffic and automobile traffic, a modern boat was provided. Ten years later, with improved transportation facilities, and greater demands, another boat was provided, with the idea of having a stand-by. Since the accident to the Charlottetown the whole north American continent has been searched for a car ferry to act as a stand-by to the Prince Edward Island, but it has been impossible to find any. I believe that must be admitted.
The question of building a new car ferry has been considered. Under present-day conditions we are led to believe that a new ferry would cost at least $4,500,000. Since the loss of the Charlottetown marine architects have been working on plans, with a view to designing a new car ferry, with improvements of a 1943 rather than a 1916 type. For this purpose the most modern icebreakers have been inspected.
Not so long ago we were informed that what was supposed to be the acme of perfection in icebreakers, namely, the Stalin, was on the Pacific coast. We dispatched marine architects to inspect that boat, to see if they could find anything which would improve on Canadian designs developed thus far. I am happy to say that upon their return they said they found nothing on that boat which they did not already know, or that Canadian science had not already explored.
With regard to the duty of the federal government toward Prince Edward Island in connection with supplying a ferry service it is my belief that this matter has been given careful attention by all governments and, up to the time of the loss of the Charlottetown the people of the island received1 very good service. They had a stand-by, the Prince Edward Island, in the event of accident.
In view of the fact that it is difficult at this time to use shipyards for building boats of a type other than those used for war purposes exclusively, I submit that the service now being provided is adequate to meet the requirements of the traffic. I agree that it would not meet the requirements in case of a major accident.
With regard to the future, let me say that I sympathize as much as the hon. member for York-Sunbury with the good people of the island. I agree that their contribution to the war effort has not been excelled in any other part of the country. The mainland entered into a contract with them at the time of confederation, and that contract will be fulfilled. They must be given the best service possible in the matter of ferry transportation.
Supply-PE.I. Car Ferry

and we intend to give it. The government has authorized the Department of Transport to take every means possible to provide a modern ear ferry, and we have been authorized by order in council to spend up to $3,000,000 during the present year. It is estimated that this car ferry will cost at least $4,500,000, based on the cost of the Charlottetown in 1930, plus the increases in cost of material and labour, and plus the added improvements that would be made in a new boat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is nothing in the estimates for that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I agree that there is nothing in the estimates now before the house, but that has been authorized by order in council. The best naval architects in Canada-I believe it is the firm which designed the Charlottetown -have been at work preparing plans for the new ferry. When the plans and designs are completed we shall have to find a shipyard that will be willing to undertake the building of a car ferry of this type. This is not the standard type of car ferry. I believe my information is correct that all shipyards in Canada are now tooled up for building boats required for war purposes, either cargo boats or defence boats of one kind or another. In order to build a boat of this type it would be necessary to take some shipyard off its present work. That would mean giving priority over war requirements. Nevertheless, as soon as the plans are completed, we shall call for tenders for the building of a ferry boat of the type required for this service.
This will take some time. It will depend upon the architects and upon the shipyards now building ships for war purposes. I think the people of Prince Edward Island understand the difficulties under which we are labouring. It is not a question of policy; it is not a question of funds; it is simply a question of the government appropriating the materials and labour without interfering too much wdth the war effort in the way of constructing cargo boats, minesweepers, corvettes and other defence boats. I think that is about all I have to say for the moment. Let me repeat that nothing has been left undone which it was possible to do in order to replace the boat which was lost in June, 1941.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury was critical of the government because Captain Read, the master of this boat, was censured by Mr. Justice Archibald, who acted as investigator.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not criticize the government about that; I was merely stating a fact.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member criticized the government because Captain Read had been given a pension after having been found guilty of negligence. It must be understood that Captain Read was an old official of the Canadian National Railways. Before being employed by the Canadian National Railways in the operation of this ferry, he had been employed by the government. At the time of the accident, as I say, he was an employee of the Canadian National Railways, and he was given charge of the Prince Edward Island up until the date of the findings of Mr. Justice Archibald on February 25, 1942, when he was suspended by the Canadian National Railways. Captain Read had been a contributor to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways employees' provident fund. This is not a government pension fund; it is a fund created by the employees and administered by them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And by the management.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Supervised by the management. Under the rides and regulations of that fund Captain Read was entitled to a pension based on the amount of his contributions.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the
ordinary employee of the railway, an ordinary trackman, have that privilege? Cases have come to my knowledge where trackmen have been dismissed for dereliction of duty and have been denied the benefits of the provident fund to which they had contributed for years.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes.


Percy Chapman Black: That has been my experience.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My information is that the question of a pension to Captain Read was investigated thoroughly by the administrators of the fund and by the officials of the Canadian National Railways. The case was submitted to the legal department of the railways, and they were told that they had to pay the pension to Captain Read.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
hearsay; has the minister that opinion with him?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not any writing before me, but that is the information I got from the officials of the Canadian National railways.


Percy Chapman Black: That should aPPl}' to everybody who has been dismissed. They should all be entitled to a pension when they have contributed to the fund.
APRIL 2, 1943	1S05
Supply-I'JZJ. Cur Ferry


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think it depends upon the rules and regulations under which the fund is administered. There are several factors which enter into the matter and which, I am told, have been considered carefully by the administrator's of the fund and by the officials of the Canadian National railways who have supervision of the fund, and by their legal department. The situation is that Captain Read is no longer in the employ of the Canadian National railways; he is retired and is drawing a pension.


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend the member for York-Sunbury has taken some time to deal with this matter. One of the suggestions he made was that the members from Prince Edward Island had not been sufficiently vocal, to use. his own words, about this matter. Speaking for myself I do not conceive it to be my duty to rise in my place in the house and speak on a question regarding which I have the fullest information, and regarding which my energy has been devoted in trying to get action rather than talking about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have not had much action yet.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will content himself for a minute-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will do that.


James Layton Ralston: -I wish to say to my hon. friend and to the committee that the members from Prince Edward Island, including myself, have been expending our energy and our efforts in endeavouring to see if something can be done and in seeing the appropriate ministers and the Canadian National railway regarding the matter, rather than making speeches in the house for the benefit of our constituents.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be all right if you got any action.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will still content himself for a minute or two, I wonder whether he is really serious in his urgings in this matter, or is he just doing it for the purpose of making a little cheap political capital?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order.


James Layton Ralston: I know, but my hon. friend is interrupting all the time. It seems to me that he is unduly anxious in this matter. I am just as anxious as he is, as I propose to demonstrate, and I have been anxious a good deal longer and have done a good deal more in connection with it, along with my colleagues, than my hon. friend has done. He has contented himself with making speeches.
We have to be realistic in this matter. We have had to face a situation which existed, and not some imaginary peace-time situation which my hon. friend has in mind. We have had to realize there was a war on, and I do not think my hon. friend did realize that when he made- the speech he did this afternoon and advocated the getting of a new ferry for Prince Edward Island immediately. If he knows anything about shipping he knows that every one of the united nations is engaged in producing as fast as it can cargo vessels and escort vessels. Every shipyard in Canada is busy in connection with that, as also is every shipyard in the United States. Every available piece of shipping is being taken. Ships are even being taken off the beach and having sails put on them to provide transportation.
My hon. friend, I presume, thinks he can make some sort of appeal to the people of Prince Edward Island by suggesting that we empty one of those berths now so busily engaged and put a car ferry into construction there which would take perhaps a year or a year and a half to build, and in the meantime we would lose the building of ten cargo vessels or eight escort vessels. I wish to say that the people of Prince Edward Island are not to be caught by that sort of thing. I am prepared to go to them at any time and tell them the situation, instead of making speeches in the house, and I and my colleagues have told them the situation. When my hon. friend talks of patriotism he does not know half as much about the patriotism of the people of Prince Edward Island as I do from my position. From the beginning of this war Prince Edward Island has been excelled in recruiting by no other province, not even by my native province which was mentioned by the hon. member for Cumberland this afternoon. The people of Prince Edward Island have gone over the to-p also in connection with every victory loan campaign and every Red Cross drive That little island contains a population of less than half that of the city of Ottawa, and yet it has overseas at the present time two artillery batteries, a squadron of the Prince Edward Island Light Llorse, a company in the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, medical units and personnel, signallers and men in every arm of the service. It has on this side the Prince Edward Island Highlanders who have been on a long and arduous tour of duty in Newfoundland. It has a veterans' guard company. I know something about the people of Prince Edward Island
Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry

and their patriotism, and I know their patriotism can, be appealed to when we are in the midst of great difficulties with respect to the shipping situation.
I wish to say here and now-this may not be an example of cabinet solidarity-that I do not regard the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland as adequate, having regard to what we should like to have in the way of modern facilities. But I do say, that in the light of all the needs at the present time I am sure that the people of Prince Edward Island will endeavour to do their best, provided that they are assured that we are doing everything we possibly can to meet the situation.
Let me tell my hon. friend what we have done. The programme when that terrific disaster occurred, and it was a terrific disaster, was to endeavour to see if we could not find some sort of stand-by for the present.
I went everywhere making inquiries. I did not know much about shipping, and it was a citizen of Prince Edward Island who suggested to me that we ought to go on the west coast of the United States and try to get a boat at Los Angeles or San Francisco. I took that up with Mr. Vaughan at the time. I wrote him and asked him about it, and he told me that he had already been making inquiries to see if he could find any other boat to act as a stand-by. They found a boat called the Sacramento and sent marine architects to look her over. They found that on two counts she would not do: (1) it was very doubtful if she would stand the seas coming around, and (2) she would be only a summer boat anyway; she could not stand the ice. Then they looked at a boat at Milwaukee, and the same situation existed with regard to her. These boats are not used in ice. My hon. friend a minute ago had the idea that we use an icebreaker between Tormentine and Borden.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister referred to that. I never did.


James Layton Ralston: The Prince Edward Island and the Charlottetown are icebreakers, with a superstructure on top for carrying cars and passengers. With these boats that were looked at in the United States you would have to have an icebreaker. There was another boat at Detroit owned by the Canadian National Railways, but it was impossible to get her through the locks without cutting her in two. The same situation existed in regard to another boat at Cobourg.
I did not make any. speeches. I wish to give my hon. friend the attitude I adopted as

a member of this government in writing to Mr. Vaughan about the possibility of getting a boat for a stand-by. Here is what I said:
I think we must proceed on the basis that a new boat is indispensable. The Charlottetown was evidently regarded as imperatively necessary when she was built, even though they had the Prince Edward Island. The need now is very much more vital and much more acute than then. The Charlottetown will have to be replaced, and if the materials were obtainable a new boat would be under way now. Consequently, a fill-in is necessary because a new boat is necessary. There may have to be a good deal of extra expense in order to furnish that fill-in, but I don't consider that engineers are in a position to say, as Messrs. German and Company apparently have, that a certain cost would be prohibitive. The cost is not prohibitive if the boat is required. I think that the war is really just beginning and that we have to think in terms of expansion. It follows that we must have a new boat and a substitute until a new boat can be obtained.
I cannot content myself with the fact that the Prince Edward Island may possibly or even probably be able to carry on. We must provide the best insurance we can against the possibility of her not carrying on or of her proving inadequate for the service.
That is the position I took then-, and that is the position I take to-day. I did not make any speeches in the house. Here is the position after months of rigorous examination. I was talking to Mr. Vaughan to-night. The technical experts of the Canadian National Railways have been sent all over the continent to find a boat which would be a suitable stand-by, and they have been unable to find one so far. Shipping is at a terrific premium. It is as scarce as the proverbial hen's teeth. While we want to have that stand-by, we have not a standi-by at the present time, and what is the alternative? The measure which needs to be taken is the building of a new boat, and the building of a new boat as soon as possible. But in the meantime, what? The situation is simply this, that we have there icebreakers not far away. If there were a serious breakdown in connection with that service, in the wintertime,
I say to the people of Prince Edward Island as I say to this house, what you would have to do is to have an icebreaker there and cargo boats in order to carry the cargo. But we also have a stand-by at Canso in the shape of the second boat there, and I am told that technical experts find that, of all the boats available, the Scotia is probably the best of the .very limited supply the government has as a stand-by in connection with that service. But this is not the fault of the government, or of hon. members from Prince Edward Island, or of this house. That is the situation we are in because there is a war on. I have an assurance from my colleagues the Minister

Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry
of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Transport that icebreakers would be made available and that we would have a stand-by if necessary.
This is not a situation which is desirable, or one that I want to see continue. If there is anything which can be done to improve that situation, I am anxious and I am sure my colleagues are anxious to do it. But we have to be realistic and understand what the situation is.
So much with regard to the winter. As regards summer conditions, the situation is very much easier, because there is the Scotia I or the Scotia II. I believe it is the Scotia I which is a- stand-by for the service between Mulgrave and Point Tupper and the service between Borden and Prince Edward Island; that is, if the necessity should arise, but we hope it will not.
Does my hon. friend who speaks of a boat twenty-nine years old realize that the Lady Grey is forty-eight years old, and that she was put in service again this year as an icebreaker? That indicates what we are up against in the matter of shipping. Prince Edward Island has done magnificent work: she has run this whole year at an average of better than ten trips a day, over eight miles each, through ice and ice floes and under bad conditions. Some trips have taken as long as eight hours. She has done splendid work. We put in oil-burning boilers this year, the last of them having been completed very recently, and they have made a tremendous improvement.
As has been said, that boat served from 1915 to 1931. I think I am correct in saying that that is when the new boat was put on. There had been only one boat up to that time. We are now back in the same situation with an older boat. I realize that this is so, and what we are tiying to do is to provide the best stand-by possible. I assure the people of Prince Edward Island that this will be done.
With regard to security, I have discussed that with my colleagues the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and the Minister of National Defence for Air, and I am assured that everything will be done that can possibly be done with the equipment that is available to afford security for that boat on that particular run.
As an extra precaution, as a matter of stand-by, the Prince Edward Island members and I have advocated to my colleague the Minister of Transport that, to take care of a temporary breakage in connection with that boat, we should have at Prince Edward Island either a marine slip or a floating dock where repairs may be made, and whereby two disadvantages will be avoided-delays on the
boat being taken to some other port for repairs, and the risks attendant on a voyage of that kind. That matter is under consideration right at this moment. We found the value of such an arrangement at the very time my hon. friend spoke about it. I am not sure whether it was repairs to the propeller or the rudder which took three days; but when a breakdown occurred we found the value of having a machine shop and a place where repairs could be made right on Prince Edward Island. The boat was taken to Charlottetown and was back on the run in about two and a half days. If we have a floating dock and a marine slip there, it will be possible to make all repairs on the spot with comparatively little loss of time.
That is the situation with regard to the Prince Edward) Island ferry. It is not by any means an ideal one; nobody realizes that more than I do. I hope no one in this chamber or anywhere else will suggest that the island members have not done all they can about it. If my hon. friend or anyone else can tell me of a boat tucked away in a bureau drawer somewhere, any boat which we can beg, borrow or steal, we shall have it. The fact is that such a boat just does not exist at the present time as far as the technicians of the Canadian National Railways can find, and they have put marine architects on that very search.
One word more. I want the committee to realize what the shipping situation is in Canada and in the world. I cannot go into details, but I assure hon. members that nobody knows better than I do how tight the shipping supply is for the movement of materials and men. I will go as far as to say that to-night on the docks in Canada a lot of equipment is awaiting shipment to points where it would be extremely valuable in the war in which we are all engaged. The people of Prince Edward Island are not going to ask that a berth, now filled with a cargo boat which can carry that stuff, shall be vacated for the purpose of building a ferry which will take, under present conditions, a year or two build. The situation may change. We hope that, on account of the drive which is on, in Canada and the United States particularly, for the building of cargo ships, a berth may be released before very long. But I must make it clear that the drive is on in 1943. I want the house to remember that, and I know that the people of Prince Edward Island, who have shown their loyalty in the matter of everything which has to do with the carrying on of the war, will recognize it as well. In connection with the building of a ferry of this sort, it is not simply a matter of providing a

Supply-PJ2.I. Car Ferry

berth and constructing the hull. There is much more than that. To-night, five hundred different shops across Canada are engaged in the manufacture of components for shipping. Those are . standard mass production components, in order that all may be put in the same kind of ship. When you have to divert three or four or five shops to the making of turbines for a particular kind of ferry, such as this, and the manufacture of what may be special propellers, steering gear and instruments, you cut- down perceptibly the output of the escort boats and cargo vessels which are needed in the battle of the Atlantic, the biggest battle of 1943.
I assure the people of Prince Edward Island and the members of this committee that we shall expedite in every way we possibly can the building of a ferry which will be adequate, in the words of my hon. friend, to meet their needs; a ferry better than the Charlottetown, although I do not think I need have much hesitation in saying that she was probably the best ferry of her kind in the world.
The people of Prince Edward Island rely on us to do our level best in connection with this matter. They want to be assured and they have a right to be assured that we are doing our level best. We rely on them to show the same loyalty and the same willingness to inconvenience themselves, to make some sacrifice if necessary, as they have done in connection with other phases of our war effort. I believe that the reliance and dependence of one on the other will be quite sufficient, and will be fully justified.
One thing more. This is a matter which has to do with more than exclusively the people of Prince Edward Island. I regard this ferry service as a national undertaking- I mean exactly what I say-national because promised in the days gone by with regard to transportation services, that is that reasonable transportation was to be given for the island itself; national in that Prince Edward Island as the cradle of confederation had a right to some consideration with respect to transportation. It is national in more senses than that, because there are to-day two schools of the air training plan on Prince Edward Island and another is to be completed before very long. For these services it is just as essential as any other national undertaking and just as much a part of our war effort. Therefore I hope that this committee will believe that the government is fully alive to the necessity for providing the very best transportation facilities possible, in view of the difficulties that surround us in these realistic times. We are fully alive to

that, not simply on account of the interests of a particular section of the community, but because we believe it is a national undertaking and desirable in the interest of bringing to the best fruition the national effort in which we are all engaged.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a brief word in reply. I have no apology to make for having brought this subject before the committee. The publicity which will be given to the discussion here this afternoon and this evening wili be of great benefit. I agree with the latter part of the minister's remarks, that this is a national undertaking and one which must be brought to fruition at the earliest possible moment. I do not agree with his colleague, and I am delighted to find myself in agreement with the Minister of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: It is only a matter of opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; it is a matter of fact. Every public body in Prince Edward Island has condemned the service as inadequate. The legislature has unanimously passed a resolution to that effect.


James Layton Ralston: "Adequacy" 1ms to be judged by what one can do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a factor. But the fact remains that the service is inadequate. I find myself in agreement with the great mass of the people of Prince Edward Island in that respect.
With respect to providing a second ship, the minister has painted a picture with respect to the shipping position of which I think we are all pretty well aware. But I suggest this: This ship was built in the Davie shipyard. The building of a shipyard in itself is not a very important consideration with respect to the construction of this ship. I am told by those who know that the capital cost of constructing a shipyard suitable for the building of a vessel similar to the Charlottetoiun would not be great. I admit that there are other considerations which would have militated and may militate now if immediate action is not taken for the early construction of this ship; that is, getting the necessary machinery and priority.
The Charlottetown was lost in June, 1941, nearly two years ago. We have not yet reached the stage of even having planned for a new vessel. That is not good enough. The minister was right in his first conclusion when he wrote that letter to Mr. Vaughan in April, 1942, just

Supply-P.E.I. Car Ferry
under a year ago, saying that a new ship would have to be built. There is no doubt as to that.
I have no apology to make to this committee 'or the nation or the people of Prince Edward Island for having advocated publicly their interest on the floor of this house, and I hope the time will never come when I shall fail to do my duty as a member of this house to any part of this dominion.


Humphrey Mitchell: This afternoon my hon. friend Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) who has just taken his seat made reference to P.C. 1774, namely, the enforcement order dealing with the wage stabilization policy. If I remember correctly, he applied the term "gestapo" to it and said that these inspectors were going to give the employers of this country the third degree. I do not think my hon. friend was serious when he made those remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said, if 1 remember correctly, that it savoured of the gestapo.


Humphrey Mitchell: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an audit.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, they go in and
check the payrolls, and in checking the payrolls they can see whether an employer is paying the correct cost-of-living bonus, and report back to the regional boards and the national board. I thought when we laid down that policy that was the most economical and soundest thing to do. It was far better than having two sets of inspectors dealing with almost identical matters.
I was amazed at my friend taking the very strong attitude he did this afternoon. He said:
I do not think anybody who reads it will approve it, and I ask the minister to have it amended so as to take this power away. To continue with this kind of procedure is a violation of the fundamental principles upon which British justice is founded, which is one of the things for which we are fighting to-day.
I have no quarrel with my hon. friend standing for the principles which have made the British people what they are, and enabled them to make the contribution they have to the science of government. But when my friend refers to these regulations as gestapo and third degree procedures I might remind him that he voted for identically the same regulations under the unemployment insurance bill in 1940.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I probably did not know about it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, my hon. friend is
not as innocent at that. I should like to read into the record the language; it is almost identical except for one or two necessary changes, because one deals with a wage stabilization policy and the other with unemployment insurance. This is section 73 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, chapter 44, statutes of 1940:
73.	Any person authorized by the commission to act as an inspector shall, for the purpose of the execution of this act, have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:
(a)	to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place, other than a private dwelling house not being a workshop, where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that any insured persons are employed;
(b)	to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions of this act are complied with in any such premises or place;
(c)	to examine orally, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an employed person, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined;
(d)	to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this act into effect.
74.	The occupier of any such premises or place and any other person employing any employed person, and the servants and agents of any such occupier or other person and any such employed person shall furnish to any inspector all such information and shall produce for inspection all such registers, books, cards, wage sheets, records of wages and other documents as the inspector may reasonably require.
Then the penalty clause is section 75'. I think my hon,. friend will agree with me that
Supply-P.E .1. Car Ferry

the inspectors charged with this responsibility will not undertake the third degree of any person in Canada. As the responsible minister I say I would not stand for it for five minutes if the facts were brought to my attention. I read that into the record just because I did not want it to be understood in the country that the Department of Labour had been turned into a gestapo, when the regulations to which my hon. friend referred were copied almost exactly from a statute passed iby a government of which he was an honoured member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not the order in council before me, but I do not believe any order in council, containing a provision like that, ought to be put through in the secrecy of cabinet council. If a public statute is put through, parliament is aware of it; publicity is given to it, and if it passes, well and good. I do not recall the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act; I do not think we examined them here on the floor of this house section by section.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes, we did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were they not before a special committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and they were also very carefully analysed in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is so, I was not paying very much attention at the time. I still object to the principle of legislating by order in council and giving any person the powers contained in section 2(c) of the order to which reference has been made. It is possible to have the third degree; under that authority it is possible to compel men to sign documents upon which they may be subsequently prosecuted, and that is contrary to the first principles of British justice.


Mr. GRANT:: I should have liked to thank the hon. member for York-Sunbury for his remarks this afternoon in connection with our transportation system, had it not become evident early in his speech that he was attempting to use the situation at Prince Edward Island to discredit the members of this house coming from that province. I fully endorse everything that has been said by the minister for that province, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston); and in that connection I should like to add that it would not look very nice or be very courteous to the minister if the private members from Prince Edward Island were to come from his
IMr. Mitchell.]
office, after discussing the car ferry matter, and immediately ask him questions about it in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are hiding your light under a bushei.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Well, before I am through I will light your candle. I only want to point out that between 1930 and 1935, when the hon. member for York-Sunbury was a member of this house, a supporter of the Bennett government and a part-time minister, the people of Prince Edward Island did not know that he existed. While he was a member of the Bennett government he never rose in his place in this house and complained that the people of Prince Edward Island were getting only six cents a bushel for their potatoes. He never asked Mr. Bennett to put a floor under the price of Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick potatoes. He never complained about the fact that pork sold in Prince Edward Island for only 1J cents a pound during that period. He never complained that hides were sold for twenty-five cents each, not twenty-five cents a pound. He never complained that eggs were being sold at very low prices; he never complained that butter, on which he rode into power, was being used in Prince Edward Island for axle grease. The people of Prince Edward Island know all these things, and he will not deceive those people in the least. He tried1 that before on the island, but all I had to do was to tell the people just what I have said to-night, and they were quite satisfied that everything was all right. The hon. gentleman made a speech there just before the last provincial election, and his own party said that was the reason why they lost the election. I have told the people there that the hon. member for York-Sunbury made a mistake when he did not take up another calling. I said I thought the hon. gentleman should have joined the circus when he was a young man, taking the part of the fellow who never opened his mouth without putting his foot in it. The people of Prince Edward Island will not be hoodwinked by any person in this house who attempts to use the serious situation that exists there in order to get across to the people something that may be of some help to the Tories of that province.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Queens):: Some reference was made to Captain Read being superannuated after forty years of faithful service to the public. I like to give credit where credit is due, and I would remind the hon. member for York-Sunbury that Captain Read navigated the icebreaker Earl Grey which was sold to the Russian government during the last war, that he piloted that boat safely across the Atlantic ocean, which was infested with submarines,

Supply-External Affairs
brought it safely to its destination and returned home. Captain Read has been a very courteous official; and though he made one mistake just two years before reaching the age of retirement, I think we should be a little charitable. If the Canadian National railways saw fit to grant Captain Read a pension, from the fund to which he contributed for many years, I think we should forget about the whole matter instead of airing it again in public.
The two ministers who have spoken, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence, have, I believe, covered the other phases of the car ferry situation. We all feel that a new ferry would be acceptable, and we hope to see one constructed at the very earliest possible date. I am sure we can entrust this to the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of Transport, to be attended to when the time is most suitable.


Gordon Graydon: This afternoon and this evening we have heard from hon. members and members of the cabinet hailing from the mari-t.imes something about the Prince Edward Island ferry. Perhaps I might add a word, because I visited Prince Edward Island in 1941 for the first time in my life. It was a great privilege and a great pleasure. There may be other places where hospitality abounds to the same extent, but there is no place in Canada where more hospitality could be shown to one coming from another province. Without engaging in the controversy with respect to the ferry service, I wish to say that on my visit, and from communications and personal contact since that time, I have learned something of the feeling of the people of Prince Edward Island with respect to this problem.
If I may project myself into the debate to-night as one coming from one of the central provinces of Canada, I would say a word arising from my personal experience in connection with transportation problems between Tormentine and Borden. Sometimes people from other parts of Canada are too prone to think of Prince Edward Island as a far-distant province. As a result they may not be sufficiently interested in the problems of that island. But when the people of that province call out through their government and through their responsible citizens; when they call out through the various avenues by means of which they can raise their voices in their plea for better transportation facilities between the island and the mainland, they are not calling out for something in addition to what they require or in addition to what they are entitled to, but rather they ask for simple justice in a cause in respect of which simple justice must be given.
One of the things which struck me most forcibly in going from the mainland to the island and returning was the fact that there seemed to be such a perilous and slender thread of communication between the island and other parts of Canada. I was there in the fall of the year, and one could not help entertaining that thought when he saw the many freight cars, the vast quantities of products and the great number of automobiles awaiting transportation.
May I join with those who have raised their voices in support of the solution of a problem which has been so ably presented. As one from central Canada may I state that we, too, appreciate their problem. We would like to help Prince Edward Island, and it is my hope that the discussion in the committee to-day will contribute something toward giving better transportation for that magnificent portion of the dominion, that province known so affectionately in other parts of Canada as "the island".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Canada's contribution to maintenance of external organizations.
415. Portion of expenses of international wheat council, $2,775.
Mr. PERLEY:: Would the minister explain this item?


James Angus MacKinnon: This amount represents Canada's share in the expenses of the international wheat council, an organization that has been sitting in Washington, dealing with the question of the distribution of wheat to the needy and overrun countries, and also in connection with the establishment of a plan for the distribution of wheat after the war.


James Lester Douglas: Who is the Canadian representative?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Mclvor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
419. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system- further amount required, $2,000.
Mr. GREEN:: This item is to provide a sum for the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, which was appointed under treaty between Canada and the United States for the
1S12
Supply-Fisheries

protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river, in British Columbia. I have no quarrel with this vote. I think it is a proper one, and that the commission is doing excellent work.
But there is a situation arising with regard to the Fraser river salmon run which should be explained without further delay by the government. It has to do with a suggestion we see in the press to the effect that one of our large fishing companies has applied for licences to instal fish traps on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in what is known as the Sooke area. There are already five fish traps in the Sooke area, and the fish caught are from the Fraser river run.
I am sure all hon. members from British Columbia will want to know whether the government now proposes to allow more fish traps to be put in that area. It would of course affect the conservation of the salmon, but also it would be flying directly in the face of recommendations made on two occasions by the committee of this house on marine and fisheries. I regret exceedingly that the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) is not in his seat to-night, but in his absence probably the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) can tell us the actual position.
I would remind him and the committee that when the standing committee on marine and fisheries sat in 1937 they were given instructions that they should consider the question of the advisability of the government issuing trap fishing licences in British Columbia waters. They had not been sitting long until it was unanimously agreed that there should be no additional fishing licences; on March 1, 1937, a resolution was passed by that committee, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) in the following terms:
That this committee go on record as opposed to any additional trap fishing licences in British Columbia, reserving the question of the advisability of renewing licences in the Sooke area for further consideration by this committee at the present time.
In other words, in the midst of our proceedings we agreed there should be no additional licences for trap fishing. We then went on to consider the question as to whether licences for existing traps should be continued. If the Minister of Transport will refer to page 207 of the minutes of proceedings of that committee in 1937 he will find that the chairman summed up the situation in these words, when referring to the resolution I have just read:
That would eliminate all the other waters and
confine us to this one question of whether the traps at Sooke should be continued or withdrawn.

In the report of the committee made od April 5, 1937, the following recommendation was made:
That no more trap licences be granted in British Columbia waters except in the so-called Sooke area, and concerning which we are unable to come to a decision as to whether they should be continued or not, without the opportunity of securing further information.
The Department of Fisheries subsequently made further investigations into whether these five licences should be continued. I think I am correct when I say that the standing committee really doubted very much whether even the five licences should be allowed. There was no thought of any more licences being granted in that area; they were certainly to be limited to five. Two years later, in 1939, the question was again referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. In that year the whole question under consideration was the continuance or the maintenance of the five licences which had been issued in previous years. I quote from page 256 of the minutes of the proceedings of the committee in 1939, as follows:
Hon. Mr. Michaud: If a judge, after taking the evidence of those advancing arguments and possibly looking into what has transpired on the American side of the line for the last four or seven years, recommends that the maintenance of traps there would induce the Americans to revert to their former policy of licensing traps and that it would be against public interest and the interest of the fishermen of British Columbia, there is no doubt that we would have to abide by such a recommendation.
In due course the committee of 1939 made its report, and we find that they recommended that there be set up a judicial commission to inquire into the whole question. The proposed terms of reference to the commission are set out in one of the paragraphs of the report as follows:
To fully investigate and hear evidence under oath, and to determine and report, whether or not it is in the public interest that trap-nets for the capture of salmon should continue to bt authorized in the Sooke area-
And so on. The committee in both years agreed that there should be no additional traps. In due course an investigation was authorized, the Honourable Mr. Justice Sloan of the court of appeal of British Columbia being named commissioner. In his report we find words to the same effect. I think it is clear from that report that he was only considering whether the five trap licences should be granted each year and was not dealing at all with the question of issuing additional licences.
Now we find that another company-it is a sound company, under efficient management and l have no quarrel with them or

Supply-Fisheries
with their employees-is applying for licences or, according to an answer made in the house the other day, is negotiating with the government. I would point out to the Minister of Transport that if licences are granted to this company, it will be only a matter of time before someone else will be wanting to get a licence. It may result in the United States licensing trap nets on the other side of the boundary, which we all agree would be a serious thing for the Canadian fishermen. It might upset the whole Fraser river salmon plans. The fishermen on the coast are greatly disturbed over this. These men have done a grand job during the war. New' men have taken over the boats formerly owned by the Japanese, and no one can question that they have done good work. Many of our fishermen have gone into the navy, and others are in the fisherman's patrol and are rendering splendid assistance to the navy. I ask the government to give us the assurance now that no additional licences will be issued for trap fishing on the Pacific coast


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member made reference to a return which had been made in connection with an application for trap nets. Would he give me more particulars?


Howard Charles Green: A question was asked by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid).	This question, together with the
answer is reported at page 1539 of Hansard as follows:
1.	Have any discussions, requests, letters or other communications been received by the Minister of Fisheries, his deputy or any other officials in his department from any person or company in connection with the granting of licences for fish traps either at Sooke, Vancouver island or other points in British Columbia?
2.	If so, have any assurances been made or given that the granting of any fish trap licences may be considered or approved?
Mr. Bertrand (Laurier): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
In addition to that, articles have been appearing in the press on the coast to the effect that licences have been or will be applied for. A statement was issued by the manager of the company making the application, so that apparently the government is toying with the idea of granting a licence, and I think we are entitled to a clear-cut statement on the matter.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), and in reply to the hon. member may I say that so far as I am aware no application has been made for trap licences, other than for the five in the Sooke area which have been
granted previously. It is possible that there may have been correspondence between people in British Columbia and the department, but I am told that no formal application has been made for a licence. Possibly the hon member for New Westminster can throw some light on the subject because he is a member of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission and is well aware of the situation in British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the policy of the government that there shall be no additional licences issued for fish traps in British Columbia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Until yesterday it was the policy of the Department of Fisheries, according to what I have been able to find out from the minister. Outside of that 1 have no knowledge or information.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean to suggest that the policy may have been changed since yesterday?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, 1 do not suggest
that.


Howard Charles Green: The policy yesterday was
that there would be no additional licences issued; is that still the policy to-day?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is still the policy today; I am not aware that it has been changed since yesterday.


Mr. REID:: The minister has referred to
my being a member of the International Pacific salmon fisheries commission, and the hon. member for Vancouver South also mentioned it in his remarks, so that it may be appropriate at this time for me to say a word or two. Let me say to the hon. member foi Vancouver South that what happened1 was that an application was made to the provincial government on behalf of British Columbia packers for certain foreshore rights at Sooke, Vancouver island. This came to the attention of the members at Ottawa several days ago. I do not know what action the hon. member for Vancouver South took when this was drawn to his attention, but I can tell him that at least four members from British Columbia including myself immediately telegraphed the provincial government protesting against the issuing of any foreshore rights, with the probability that later on application would be made to the dominion, government for a licence for fish traps. We also interviewed the Minister of Fisheries and protested against the granting of any licences for the operation of fish traps.
Supply-Fisheries

As was pointed1 out by the Minister of Fisheries at the time he could not deal directly with the matter until application had been made for licences. As a matter of fact I would be a little critical of the provincial government for leasing some 8,000 acres of foreshore lands to British Columbia packers, knowing they were for fish traps and that the company would then make application to the dominion government for fishing licences for traps. I wish to point out to the member for Vancouver South that some representations were made to the government by at least four members from British Columbia, and 1 trust he took the same steps that we did, because to wait until the matter comes up in the house might have been too late. I think we did the proper thing, and I urge him to follow the same course immediately a matter of this kind comes up. The hon. member said, when he made his statement, that the question of the fishing traps had a bearing on Ihe work of the international fisheries com-nission. It has really little bearing on our task. I made my protest against the issuing of licences for traps on account of what might happen if traps were put in there. It would, to my mind, have the effect of reducing the livelihood of the fishermen on the Fraser river.
I would point out to this house the dangers that are going to arise in the years after 1945. Beginning with that year it will be the duty of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to regulate the sockeye salmon fisheries on the Fraser river. It is of interest to note, and this pertains to the same question, that up until 1935 the United States had been taking something like sixty-five per cent Fraser river fish; that is, of the catch of fish coming through the straits and heading to the waters of the Fraser. But when they took the traps out of United States waters the reverse was the case, so that from 1935 and on up until the present time Canadian fishermen have been taking from sixty to sixty-five per cent of the catch as against thirty-five per cent to the United States. But in 1945 by the treaty the matter of distribution of the sockeye will come into the hands of the international Paoific salmon fisheries commission, and the catch then has to be divided equally between the two countries. This means that in 1945 or 1946 the sixty-five per cent of the fish which we have been taking will be reduced to fifty per cent of the total sockeye coming to the Fraser river. Hence, not as a member of the sockeye commission, but particularly as a member of this house representing a fisheries district, I felt it incumbent upon myself to 
make strong protests to the government against allowing any traps to be put in there and operated, because any traps put in there intercept the fish as they come in and thereby affect the livelihood of the fishermen. After all, only a certain number of fish come in, and the more traps you have, the fewer fish there will be each year for the individual fisherman. I do not think any definite statement has been made by the minister on this point other than that the representations we made are being given very serious consideration.
I do not think it is right for the provincial government to grant the application for a lease of 8,000 acres of foreshore lands to British Columbia Packers, knowing the conditions which will arise if fish traps are put in there.


Mr. NEILL:: As one of the four members from British Columbia who protested against the issue of these leases I should like to endorse what the two previous speakers have said. I would have been very much gratified if the Minister of Fisheries had been in his place to-night and had been able to give us the assurance asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver South. The Minister of Trans-nort, speaking apparently on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, used an expression that gave me some feeling of doubt. He said that there had been no formal application for this licence. The use of the word "formal" might in days to come save him from any accusation of bad faith, because he might say that there was nothing formal, that there had been merely what are called in diplomatic circles conversations. But when a man in a high position promises something by way of conversation we generally expect to take his word as an undertaking.
But what makes it a little doubtful is this. Here is a big, powerful, shrewd company. They know all about the obstacles that have been placed in the way as mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South. They know it was practically agreed upon by resolution of the fisheries committee that there should be no more traps granted beyond those already in existence. And yet this shrewd company goes to the considerable expense of staking out some 8,130 acres of foreshore land to be leased from the provincial government. The procedure is that they must first obtain from the provincial government leases of the foreshore, which is the land between high and low water. Then they come to this government and ask for a licence to put in traps at these particular sites. It is remarkable that this company should go to such considerable expense because this land has to be surveyed, and so on, and advertised at considerable

Supply-Fisheries
expense in the Gazette and in the local papers. The seven applications cover nearly half a column of the Gazette.. If they do all that without having some assurance from some friend at court that they are likely to get a licence from the dominion government, they are certainly not proceeding along very businesslike lines. I have had some fear, as apparently the hon. member for New Westminster has had; but certainly we had some considerable hope that the matter might be adjusted favourably by refusing the licences entirely.
The argument put forward in the press by this company, which has taken considerable space in the papers to advocate its views, is that these traps would catch fish more readily than they could be caught by the fishermen and therefore they would produce more fish. They consider that an argument which might appeal just now if fishermen are scarce. As regards fishemen being scarce, I have a record here of the licences issued in the last two years. In 1941, when the Japs had a large number of licences, the total number of fishing licences in British Columbia-I am not talking of salmon licences alone-was 13,602, of which the Japs had 2,090. Of course the figures would be different if I confined them entirely to salmon. I have not those figures, but they would count still more strongly for the argument I intend1 to make. In 1942, all these Jap licences, numbering 2,090, were eliminated because the Japs were all removed from the coast and were not given any licence to fish. In 1942, in times of an almost unbelievable scarcity of labour of all kinds, much worse in British Columbia than in the east, the total number of licences issued was 15,380, all for whites or Indians-no Japs. So that not only was the loss of 2,090 Japs whose fishing licences were taken away absorbed, but there was an increase in the total number issued of some 1,700 odd, and that at a time of extreme scarcity of labour. That disposes of the idea that there is any need to increase the number of traps to catch more fish on the ground of a scarcity of fishermen.
Then as to the value of the fish caught last year, I have not the figures in tons or pounds, but the value taken last year greatly exceeded the value of the fish caught in the previous year. That was not altogether because more fish were taken, but on account of higher prices. To take it on the basis of the number of fish caught would not be a very fair test anyhow, because the run of salmon varies so much from year to year. But it is obvious that a great deal more in value of the fish caught was
obtained last year, with something like 1,700 more fishermen employed even after covering the loss of some 2,000 Japs. So that it does not appear that there is any justification whatever for this company asking for traps on the ground that they need them to catch the fish necessary' in Canada or for the British market at this time.
There is another argument. When this agitation started-it was largely begun by myself in 1936-there were sometimes three, sometimes four and sometimes five traps at Sooke. The fish went past those traps and then into Puget Sound1, in almost entirely United States waters. There were a large number of United States traps there, with the result that they took somewhere about sixty-five per cent of the total catch that went into the Fraser. For reasons which we need not go into, the United States government stopped the issue of all trap licences in Puget Sound1. The consequence was that we caught more fish than were caught on the American side- a desirable thing. The people who held the vested interest in those traps were very unwilling to part with them, and they saw', when an agitation was brought forward for more traps on our side, a chance to employ' this argument with their government, "Canada is catching the great bulk of them now; let us get our traps back." I had a letter from a man who owns traps on the United States side in which he says that he hopes our traps would be maintained and increased, because that would- be all the justification, they would need to go back to traps on the United States side. If we go on with the traps now proposed, it would be an invitation and almost a guarantee that the Americans would be allowed to put their traps back on their side, which would- reduce our catch materially. The obvious result would be to wipe out not all, but by far the greater number of our fishermen on the west coast. Salmon fishing, cf course, is the largest industry there; and when we think of the services these men have rendered in this war, how they have cheerfully given up their boats for naval- purposes, and have joined the -naval reserve, where they have done excellent service, it does not seem a very appropriate return for their gallantry, and the danger they are running, that while they are serving our country we take steps which would deprive them of their livelihood when they come back. If you want to go in for that kind- of thing, of course, the answer is, go ahead, forgetting justice and decency.
Remember this also, that if any more are allowed at Sooke, there is a sort of gentlemen's agreement, to which I was no party,

Supply-Fisheries
that the two or three traps there should be allowed to remain, but at any rate they were to be the only ones. If we add more there now, the logical reply is, "You must allow them all over British Columbia," and then you wipe out the working fishermen or reduce them to a very large extent. That is not a desirable thing.
When war came it was a very advantageous condition for us when we found this class of fishermen there, men who knew every corner and bay on the coast and possessed other valuable information. I do not want to give away war secrets, but it is well known that there have been submarines up the west coast in the vicinity of most of the fishing towns. A lighthouse was shelled a year ago, and also one or two vessels have been torpedoed. The services these fishermen have given have been very useful indeed. We must not let them down.
I wonder if I might take a moment to deal with another matter, one of burning importance. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries is unavoidably absent just now. The subject is also connected with the Minister of National Revenue. Some years ago a sales tax was put upon gasoline sold to everybody on the Pacific coast, and more recently some special kind of revenue tax of three cents a gallon was imposed. The law-and I am not talking about custom or favouritism or anything of the kind, but the law which you and I can demand and invoke for our rights-says that if anyone clears from a customs port to go deep-sea fishing he does not have to pay these taxes. If they are engaged1 in deep-sea fishing they are exempt from the three cents and from the sales tax, which together represent a difference of 4-8 cents a gallon-call it five cents when you are about it. That, of course, is an advantage: it helps the fishermen and aids in the production of fish in these times, when they are so badly needed.
About four years ago, when this tax was first put on, I interested myself in the subject and found that this was the law; that anyone clearing for deep-sea could, by producing his deep-sea clearance, get his gas and oil at that reduced rate; but the trouble was that in order to clear you had to have a customs officer, and you do not have customs officers all over the coast, at rugged and isolated places, as fishing places so ofteu are. So that it was found desirable to appoint what I call amateur, though perhaps a better word would be acting, customs officers. Instead of having a customs officer at a salary of 81,200 a year, the habit grew up of paying someone a very small sum on

each boat he cleared. The total was not to exceed $200 a year, and never did, and after the fishing season was over, of course the man did not get any salary. I persuaded the. dominion government customs department to appoint these acting customs officers at a number of places. One was Bull Harbour and another was Winter Harbour. Probably one hundred and fifty boats got their gas and oil there during the season. A person of very ordinary ability could do this work; it was not necessary to have an expert. In two cases I had women appointed, because they happened to be at the right place and were quite capable of doing the work, which was slight. But they were required to clear every morning or night, as the case might be; when the fishermen came in at night they cleared for the next day, and they got their gas and oil much cheaper, and could engage in fair and1 helpful competition with the Americans. The arrangement worked very well indeed. Occasionally petty jealousies arose. Two oil stations quarreled as to in whose vicinity the acting customs officer should be placed, because naturally a fisherman would take his fish to the place which was nearest to where he cleared his boat, and it was an advantage to have one of these acting officials near an oil station or a fish buying plant, as the case might be. People are selfish. I recall one particular place where they complained to the government that I was not treating them fairly because I had put the customs officer a quarter of a mile nearer one plant than the other. I settled that matter by saying that, if there was any more of it, the likelihood was that the officer would be taken away altogether, and I would let the fishermen know who was responsible for its being closed. That led them to see common sense. Finally, I planted a customs officer at almost exactly half way between the two competing plants; and even then one of them wrote and complained that he was fifty yards nearer the other plant than he was to the writer's plant.
This sort of petty jealousy will arise anywhere. If you get a post office planted in a remote place there is always controversy as to just where it is to be located. What is the remedy? It is, I think, to handle it the way I did, and make some arrangement which will be mutually satisfactory. But the way it will be handled now will be totally different, and it is as to this injustice I wish to speak. In the district beyond mine there are two rival fish plants. Each wanted the officer at their place and not near the other man, and they made so much fuss to the department

Suppl y-Fish e lies
of customs that, to solve an annoying situation, the department said, "Oh, we will do away with the whole thing and confine it only to those very few stations where there is a permanent paid customs officer." Certainly that looked to be a ready and simple way of getting rid of an embarrassing situation, but it was a very poor way from the point of view of the fishermen or of justice. It would be an analogous situation if, because there was some trouble between myself and my neighbour as to where we would post our letters, an order was issued that there should be no post office there at all and that we would have to go twenty or thirty miles to post our mail. They have issued an order that almost all these stations except the permanent customs stations shall be wiped out. I can think of one case, Bull Harbour, where we had a woman acting for a few cents she received in connection with each application, and where the amount for the whole year would not exceed 8150.
One hundred and fifty fishermen got their oil and gas there for several months during the fishing season, and it was an enormous advantage.
These fishermen have to go out twenty or thirty or forty miles offshore before they begin fishing; that takes gas. They have to have good-sized boats capable of going out into the open Pacific. When they are fishing they have to keep the engine running all the time, because they fish by trolling lines. The boat must be kept moving slowly, and that takes more gas proportionately than proceeding at a higher speed. The gas forms a considerable part of their expense, and the price has gone up a good deal iu the last few years and even in the last few months. Now the Department of National Revenue comes along and merely to save a little trouble when people squabble about it they throw the whole thing over. That is not the way to do. They say,
' It would be no worse than farmers having to pay gasoline tax." I am not discussing the rival claims of farmers and fishermen, I am talking about the law. The law saj's I have the right to post my mail, and it says that these fishermen if they clear for the deep sea have this exemption. I do not propose to allow a thing of that kind to go through as long as I have a voice to protest; it is palpably unreasonable and unjust.
I understand it was dealt with by a committee. A committee consisting of whom? With one exception, of officials, members of the Department of National Revenue, who are not familiar with fishing conditions, do not have to be and do not want to be. They see these returns coming in and giving some trouble and bother, and they say, We will stop the whole thing. There was one member on the committee who understood fishing conditions, but he of course was overruled. I think if the matter were fully explained to the Minister of National Revenue, as I hope to have opportunity to do, a remedy will be found; and it is urgent, because the fishing is now going on.
As to Winter Harbour, we had a person there last year. Now what are they going to do? They have to go to Quatsino, some thirty-five miles away, where there is a permanent customs officer, and lose the time and gas that that involves. The life of a fisherman is like this: He starts about midnight in order to get to the fishing grounds at daybreak, because at that time and at dusk the fishing is best. He goes out there and fishes at dawn; he is twenty miles or more from home; he cannot go back, and therefore he hangs around out there in the heavy sea, perhaps catching an odd fish but hardly enough to pay for his gas. Then there is another hour or two along about sunset when the same favourable conditions arise. So that in the summer he has to stay there until about nine o'clock. Then he comes home the twenty or forty miles and waits in lino with thirty or forty or perhaps 100 other boats to sell his fish and have them weighed. Then he gets his groceries and gas permit and clears at the customs; then he goes and gets the gas, and then he can go to bed. He gets in, I suppose, about ten o'clock and has to leave about midnight. So that he has no time to go running around needlessly, .and, besides, if he did spend his time running to Quatsino, it vcould take him twelve hours to go there and back and there is a day's fishing gone, besides the cost of the gas. So that it is giving a premium to the two or three fishermen who happen to live in the immediate vicinity of these three or four permanent officers. I cannot see any justice or common sense or saving or war necessity in making this change, which, it seems to me, is due to lack of appreciation of the situation.
Therefore I plead with the government and the Minister of National Revenue-I have taken it up with the Minister of Fisheries, and I think I have his sympathy-and suggest that if they cannot do anything better at this late hour, at least let the situation continue as it is for another year. It has been that way now' for three or four years, and no harm has happened. For all the revenue they would get it would perhaps pay them to allow all the fishermen on the Pacific coast not to have to clear at alii. That would save the expense of maintaining these acting officers.
Be that as it may, at any rate I beg that they will take some steps to remedy the situation within the next few days, because the fishing is going on now, and the fishermen cannot go thirty miles to get their supplies. And we do want these people to catch fish. Britain
Supply-War Services

is crying out for it, and we have not enough fish to go round even in British Columbia; tinned fish is practically off the market. The whole of last year's output was sold to Britain. We want to help our practical fishermen in this way to maintain the output that they had in years gone by.
Mr. O'NEILL: I think nearly everything has been said that needs to be said in regard to granting licences for fish traps. This is undesirable and should not be entertained. I associate myself with the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Comox-Allbemi in their protest against any further licensing of fish traps. I hope those that are now in existence will not be there much longer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
NATIONAL WAR SERVICES (Other than war appropriations)
428. National film board, including motion picture bureau - further amount required, 175,000.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister indicate why this further amount is required?
Hon. LEO R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): The item is divided into two parts; 865,000 is required to purchase equipment to carry on additional work due to war conditions, being done at the request of the service departments; $10,000 is for the purchase or making of a large number of war film prints. The whole is strictly a necessary war expenditure.


Gordon Graydon: If it is a necessary war expenditure the minister must have overlooked that it is described as " other than war appropriations." '
Mr. LaFLECHE: These amounts are really capital expenditure. The equipment remains with the national film board, and the amount for war film prints is similar to a revolving fund, because they make or purchase these prints and then sell them.


Mr. HAZEN:: Where will this equipment be purchased?
Mr. LaFLECHE: From quite a number of different firms. I have a list. I can show it to my hon. friend if he wishes.


Douglas King Hazen: Are they in Canada or the United States?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Mostly in the United
States. Some in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
431.	Canada Gazette

further amount required, $22,000.
432.	Distribution of official documents- further amount required, $2,100.
Gordon Graydon: I d'o not know at the moment under whose department these items come. The Minister of Trade and Commerce?


James Angus MacKinnon: No; the Secretary of State.


Gordon Graydon: The minister undertook to answer for him. Did the public printing and stationery' department come under the direction of the controller of economy, or does the minister know?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
undertook to give the explanation in connection with these items, but I would not venture to answer a question having to do with departmental matters.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the Minister of National War Services, who appears to know quite a bit about the economy controller, could tell us.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I was guessing in an
attempt to assist the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I shall try to do so for the benefit of my hon. friend. It seems to me that this item is for the distribution of documents, not for their purchase or printing. That is the best I can say.


Gordon Graydon: Then I cannot ask for more than that.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements- Public Buildings.
Ontario.
433. Ottawa west block-testing laboratories -alterations and fittings, $12,000.
Mr. STIRLING:: Does this imply that the testing laboratories are in the west block, and if so, what are they?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: The testing laboratories of my department are in the west block, and the increase in work since the beginning of the war has caused the need for additional space and equipment to make the analyses and tests.


Grote Stirling: What testing is done in that laboratory?


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give all the details of all the materials tested.

Supply-Mounted Police


Grote Stirling: But roughly what sort of testing is done?


Alphonse Fournier: In connection with all purchases of certain chemicals, soaps and that sort of thing, and we are also doing work for the three branches of the service. That explains the need for the extension,


Grote Stirling: The national research does not carry on your testing for you?


Alphonse Fournier: We have a
separate testing branch for these different materials, and the number of tests has greatly increased. In 1941 we tested 2,316 samples, and in 1942 we tested 7,568 samples.
Item, agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
h35. General administration-further amount required, $3,300.


Gordon Graydon: I am not sure whether this question was asked before, but would the Minister of Justice indicate whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police come under the cost-of-living bonus scheme?
Hon. L, S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): There is no cost-of-living bonus paid to the, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have not been included in the order providing for the payment of cost-of-living bonuses to certain of the personnel of the civil service.


Howard Charles Green: Why not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The contract of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the crown implied traditionally that they were to be provided with rations, fuel, light and quarters, and in a great many cases they are so provided. In a great many cases they are not. From time to time equivalent amounts have been determined to be paid to those who were not in fact provided with rations, fuel, light and quarters. The rate had been fixed according to ranks, the next to last time on November 4, 1938. Then the question arose, since the cost of living had increased, ,as to whether or not that rate should be modified, and after consideration it. was modified for those who were receiving the smaller amounts. In the fall of 1942 there were increases given to all ranks below that of staff sergeant. For all those ranks, with respect to married men the amount was fixed at 82.25 a day, while for some of them it had been as low as 81.60 a day. For unmarried men since 1938 it had been 81.20 a day, and it was fixed at $1.50 a day. It is these increases that are covered by these supplementary estimates. The $3,300 is for the increase from September
1 to March 31 in respect of forty of the personnel in the administration service, while the other amount of $95,000 represents the increase for the same months for 948 members of the field forces.


Howard Charles Green: Does that apply also to the security guards?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. These amounts are to cover the increases for that period for the regular members of the force.


Howard Charles Green: Has any provision been made for the security guards?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No provision has been made for the security guards other than a slight adjustment that was made for the unmarried men. When they were taken on in 1939 the rate that was allowed1 for those who were not billeted was 81 a day, and when the amount allowed to the soldiers was increased from $1 to SI.25 a similar increase was given the single men in the security guards. Then when draftees were called, only unmarried draftees were taken, and they were allowed the same living allowance that the soldiers were allowed.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Could the minister tell us what percentage of this total of $98,300 represents increased pay allowed to the mounted police during the past year? While I am on this subject I might say that in my frank opinion the mounted police hold a position in public opinion in Canada second to none, and that with the increased services they must render under war-time conditions and the increased hardships they are bound to suffer, particularly in connection with those who have wives and children to protect against the increased cost of living, we should be very appreciative of the work they are doing and not too niggardly with the raises, particularly when they do not get the cost-of-living bonus.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no portion of the amounts covered by the two items 435, general administration, and 436, land services, that represents increased pay. These two items are to cover increases in the living allowances given to, those who are not provided with quarters, rations, light and fuel.


George Russell Boucher: As I understand the situation, very few of the married men are provided with quarters and so on; it is really only those who live in barracks, who have no dependents. Consequently married members of the mounted police who have families living at home really receive no consideration in virtue of the increased cost of living.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, they do. In the case of staff sergeants there was no increase;
Supply-Mown Icd Police

the allowance had been $2.25 and has remained at $2.25. In the case of the sergeants it was formerly $2 and, as from September 1, 1942, it was increased to $2.25.


George Russell Boucher: Whether married or single?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; that was for married sergeants. All these increases have to do with married men. In the case of a corporal it was $1.85, increased to $2.25. In respect of constables, first-class, it was increased from $1.85 to $2.25. Constables, second-class, were increased from $1.70 to $2.25, and constables, third-class, from $1.60 to $2.25. In respect of all single constables the increase was from $1.20 to $1.50.


Angus MacInnis: Has the question of cost-of-living bonus to special constables been considered? Regardless of what regular members of the force may get in respect of special living allowances, the fact remains that they get nearly all their clothing. On the other hand, special constables get very little clothing, in fact only one or two items. Then, it was pointed out last night that their pay is exceedingly small, standing at only $3.20 a day. I do not think anyone in a responsible position, particularly one holding the position of constable, should be asked to live on that wage. Has consideration been given to giving the cost-of-living bonus to special constables?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The rates of pay fixed were those fixed in 1939, after discussion with the legion. On the recommendation of the legion this work was allotted to veterans of the last war. The matter had been gone into in July, 1939, when Brigadier W. W. Foster discussed it with the commissioner. Rates of $1.60 as pay and $1.60 as allowances were determined for married men; and $1.60 as pay and $1 as allowances were .decided upon for single men. Those rates have remained the same to this time, with the exception that the $1 a day allowance to single men was increased to $1.25 when the allowance to the soldier living out of barracks was increased from $1 to $1.25. These rates had been fixed on a comparable basis with what was being paid to men going into the army. They have not been modified since. Representations had been made from time to time by men engaged on this work to the effect that they should receive the cost-of-living bonus; but, as lion, members know, there is no cost-of-living bonus for the soldier. The matter has been under discussion, but no decision favourable to the men has been reached yet in that regard.


Angus MacInnis: In my opinion everything the minister has said in reply to my question indicates that there is a reason for very favour-
able consideration of the representations of these men. He has said there has been ho cost-of-living bonus given to the men in the army, but I think he forgets that within the last few months they have been given an increase in pay amounting to twenty cents a day. However, the situations are not comparable, because men in the army receive dental and medical care, and attentions of that kind. On the other hand, these special constables receive nothing more than their $3.20. and they have families to keep.


Gordon Graydon: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I shall have something to say on this point when the main estimates are before the committee. However, I think the minister will agree with me when I say that when the history of this war is written, so far as the home front is concerned, a very bright page will be reserved for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this war-time period. They have done a magnificent job. Perhaps it is unnecessary for members of parliament even to refer to their work, because it speaks for itself.
Between now and the presentation of the main estimates I would ask the minister to consider this question of cost-of-living bonus for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is not good enough to say that men in the armed forces are getting a certain amount, and that for that reason members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be placed on a comparable basis. If in our war effort we were to base our remuneration upon what is received by the armed forces we would have before us an interesting comparison. The opinion has been expressed in the house on many occasions-I have so expressed it-that there is a great disparity between the pay and allowances of our armed forces and the rates of pay of those engaged in the civilian war effort.
I would ask the minister to give conscien-lious consideration to this matter, if for no other reason than that of a gesture of goodwill from the hearts of the Canadian people who, in this lime of war, have felt a sense of security and safety on our home front. I believe any favourable consideration on the part of the minister would be greatly appreciated.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 
George Russell Boucher: Is it not a fact that the increase in pay was really to take the place of the subsistence allowance paid to the member of the mounted police force, himself, and that it disregarded entirely any dependents he might have? Is it not a fact that in dealing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the government has not taken into consideration the dependents of the men? Are not the regulations such that a mounted policeman cannot take unto himsalf a wife without the consent of the authorities, or until he has served a certain time in the service and is receiving a sum adequate to support a wife and family?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That has been the regulation since the organization of the force. The rule has been similar to that applied in banks. It is necessary for a man to attain a certain rank and receive a certain pay which will enable him to support a wife and a family according to the standard which should be that of a member of the force.


George Russell Boucher: They do not take the dependents into consideration; only the man himself?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The increase in the total amount paid to the married man is different from that granted to the single man. It was not really an increase in pay, it was an increase in that part of what he receives in substitution of rations, lodging, light and fuel for himself and for his family, if he is a married man, and for himself alone, if he is single.


John Horne Blackmore: Is an additional allowance made for each child?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. These conversions have been on an arbitrary basis. There are men of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police in barracks whose actual cost of living is several dollars a day. I was horrified the other day at having to approve the purchase of coal at $40 a ton. Members of the force are stationed at different places and provided with lodging, rations, light and fuel at considerable expense. Since they are subject to income tax this situation is recognized and for taxation purposes, no matter what the cost may be, only the value under normal conditions is considered as income and subject to taxation.


John Horne Blackmore: A moment ago the
minister indicated that the authorities would study the situation to see whether these men could get along on the amount that was allowed to them. By what standard does the department endeavour to judge whether a man can get along?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The devotion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to duty has always been outstanding. It has always been recognized that they were receiving pay and allowances merely to carry them along. The pension provisions were made more generous than those of any other branch of the civil service, as some compensation in respect Of that fact.


John Horne Blackmore: In my judgment the
pay of the mounted police and the constables is altogether too low, and a revision upward is overdue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]}38. Bureau for translations-further amount required, $2,000.
Gordon Graydon: The Secretary of State
(Mr. McLarty) is not here to-night, but perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce would indicate why a further amount is required.


James Angus MacKinnon: The Secretary of State was called to Toronto, and he asked me to answer this question. The additional amount is required for salaries and bonuses for additional employees of the bureau for translations whose services are required by various war departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions.
Local services.
1/39. Purchase of the steamer Pelee to maintain the Pelee island and mainland service, $40,000.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister indicate when the steamer Pelee was purchased and what vessel it replaced?

Supply-S team ship Subventions


James Angus MacKinnon: The steamer Pelee
was purchased in 1914 and was specially built for the service. The service was subsidized by the government for some years at $11,000 a year. This subsidy was then reduced to $4,000. About a year ago the man holding the contract laid up the vessel because he found he could not operate under the subsidy agreement. Efforts were made to secure another vessel, but without avail, and inasmuch as the service had to be maintained with Pelee island and1 no other vessel was available, it was decided to try to purchase this vessel. This was done, after valuations had been made, at a price of $40,000. We then made an arrangement to sell the vessel to the same man, Mr. Goodiison of Blenheim, Ontario. We have entered into an arrangement with him to continue this service. He has purchased the vessel, the purchase price being payable $10,000 on October 31, 1942, which has been paid, and the balance at the rate of $5,000 a year.


Gordon Graydon: The minister said that
the steamer had been purchased in 1914; does he mean it was purchased by the private owner?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
said it was specially built in 1914 for this service.


Gordon Graydon: I thought the minister
said it was purchased.


George Russell Boucher: Is the new subsidy on
the reduced basis of $4,000?


James Angus MacKinnon: The subsidy has been increased for this service.


George Russell Boucher: To what figure?


James Angus MacKinnon: To


George Russell Boucher: To the original figure.
This is an increase to the new purchaser who purchased the boat from the government about a year ago? This man purchased the boat for $40,000, payable $10,000 down and the rest in regular payments. The subsidy has been increased from $4,000 to $11,000.


James Angus MacKinnon: That was the best arrangement we could make to maintain the service with Pelee island.


George Russell Boucher: Was the same offer made to the previous owner of the vessel who had laid it up on account of inadequate subsidy?


James Angus MacKinnon: The vessel was laid up because the owner found that he could not operate the service with the
[Mr. Graydon.l
subsidy being paid. The net result was that the government purchased the vessel and made an arrangement with him for repurchase at the same amount and granted an increased subsidy.


Charles Edward Johnston: He pays out of the earnings he gets under the new contract? He paid $10,000, and then he pays the balance as he receives the money from the government.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the two arrangements are entirely separate. The sale of the boat to the operator for an amount equal to the price paid by the government was a separate arrangement.


Charles Edward Johnston: These payments are not spread? The payments are made as the operator of the boat gets his subsidy from the government. One is tied in with the other?


James Angus MacKinnon: We pay the subsidy, and we see that he makes his payments. If he got behind in his payments we would withhold the subsidy.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to get this clear. It seems to be becoming more confused as we go along. First of all, the vendor of the boat received $40,000 from the government for his boat. The government paid him $40,000 in cash. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Then the next stage in the transaction is that the man starts to buy .the boat back from the government. He has still the $40,000 in his right-hand pants' pocket. He also gets his subsidy raised from $4,000 to $11,000. Then he starts to buy the boat back from the government out of this increased subsidy from $4,000 to $11,000 which he is paid every year. As I say, he still has the $40,000 in the bank. Then he proceeds to carry out his contract on a time-payment plan. Does the minister regard that as good business?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, I do. The Pelee was offered for sale after being laid up because the owner could not operate the service at the subsidy then being paid by the government. The Pelee was offered for sale at a cash price of $40,000, and under instructions of the department her value was appraised by Lloyds surveyor in Toronto, who found after a complete survey that the vessel was in good condition and reported that a valuation of $40,000 was fair and reasonable. Under present war conditions it appeared

Supply-Steamship Subventions
impossible to find anyone who would buy this vessel for cash and place her on the Pelee route under subsidy. Since it was urgently necessary that a vessel of this type be procured without further delay, the minister recommended that the department be authorized to purchase the Pelee at a cost of $40,000. This was done under authority of order in council P.C. 8795, of September 30, 1942. The vessel was then resold to Mr. D. L. Goodison, who entered into a contract with the department to operate the Pelee island mainland service for a period of six years.


Gordon Graydon: 840,000 is the amount for which the government bought it?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; everything is perfectly open.


Gordon Graydon: I am not suggesting that it is not. But it seems a strange contract.


James Angus MacKinnon: He is to operate the service for a period of six years at $11,000 a year under the following terms: The price is $40,000, and the government takes security for that with a mortgage on the vessel. The government concluded this arrangement with the purchaser, giving him an increased subsidy, in order to maintain the service which was considered necessary. We had to make the best possible arrangement we could.


Gordon Graydon: It is getting late, and I do not want to delay the passage of the item, but it is very unfortunate that it comes up at this time of the evening. I would ask the minister this question: Did he or his department consider the possibility of increasing the subsidy from $4,000 to $11,000, and allowing the owner still to retain ownership of the vessel? That would have involved no undertaking from the government other than the increase in the subsidy which the government has obligated itself to pay. I know nothing about this particular transaction. It may be perfectly in order in every way, but on its face it does not look very good. It brings up this point. We as a government, in my opinion, and I will express it perhaps more volubly at some other stage of the session, have paid out far too much money in capital investments in Canada during this wartime period. We have invested tremendous sums of money in buildings all over Canada when we might have rented buildings in many places, and when we might have made other arrangements in many other instances. The practice is far too prevalent of making these capital investments. I ask the minister again: Did he consider leaving the ownership of this boat
with the owner and simply increasing the subsidy with no further obligation from the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have no doubt that the question raised by the leader of the opposition was very carefully and thoroughly considered by the capable people in the department.


Gordon Graydon: Did the minister himself go into that transaction?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; I was in constant consultation with my officials, and we made the very best possible arrangement we could to carry on this service.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is a good business man. Did any question arise in his mind as to the propriety of this transaction from a business point of view?


James Angus MacKinnon: Not the slightest.


George Russell Boucher: Surely the minister will agree that to buy a man's boat for $40,000 cash and) then sell the boat back to him on a time-payment plan and give him an increased subsidy from $4,000 to $11,000 is at least suspicious-looking.


James Angus MacKinnon: Only to a suspicious mind, I think.


George Russell Boucher: I am afraid my business experience does not agree with that of the minister.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the minister has made any too good a deal. Here is a man who cannot make his boat go on a $4,000 a year subsidy. He then sells it to the government for $40,000 cash. The government then turns round and sells the boat back to him for $40,000 to be repaid over a number of years, and increases his subsidy from $4,000 to $11,000 for a period of six years. So that the man gets $66,000 in subsidy, pays back $40,000 in six years, and that leaves him a working capital of $26,000 which is exactly what he had before. The net result is that he is operating the boat now for exactly the same subsidy as he had before, but when he gets through with his contract he will be $40,000 ahead because he will own the boat. If he could not run the service before on that subsidy, how in the world can he do so now? It means that he has done the government out of the price of that boat in the six years, and that does not look like good business to me. The minister may have been acting in perfectly good faith in the transaction, but I think he had one slipped over on him.



Supply-Steamship Subventions


James Angus MacKinnon: Not at all. The government at the end of this transaction will not be out one dollar.


Howard Charles Green: The government will be out the boat.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; we did not have a boat to start with, and we are not finishing up with a boat. There is only one point to the whole transaction, namely, that in order to get the service, it was necessary to increase the subsidy and to make this arrangement with the contractor.


Charles Edward Johnston: What was the former subsidy?


James Angus MacKinnon: The contractor was paid $11,000 for some years. Then the government in its wisdom decided that the subsidy should be reduced, but the owner found1 that he could not operate his boat on the reduced subsidy and laid his boat up.


Charles Edward Johnston: The subsidy was reduced to what?


James Angus MacKinnon: To $4,000.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then the government had to increase it.


James Angus MacKinnon: We found it necessary to revert to the original subsidy we were paying.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister says that they gave the contractor a subsidy of $11,000 at first, and then they decided in their wisdom to reduce it to $4,000. Am I right in that? Surely the government would never, without a thorough investigation, have decreased the subsidy from $11,000 to $4,000. That is a tremendous decrease. They must have had some good ground other than that, because a fellow says, "I will not operate that service", the government turns round and makes this transaction, restoring the subsidy to the original $11,000.


James Angus MacKinnon: After negotiations.


Charles Edward Johnston: It means that he is forcing the government to pay for that boat over again. The government have sold back the boat, but they have increased the subsidy by $7,000. It pays for the boat, and he is getting the amount he had before. He is operating exactly the same as he did before; only he is getting the payments of the boat clear.


James Angus MacKinnon: No. The boat is being purchased by us for $40,000 and resold for $40,000. If these payments are kept up, and I have no doubt they will be, that settles that transaction.


Charles Edward Johnston: But he has $40,000 in his pocket.


James Angus MacKinnon: Will the hon. member pardon me? We have contracted with this owner to carry on this service for a subsidy of $11,000 a year, it having been found impossible to maintain the service at the reduced subsidy. That is the complete story; that is what was finally accomplished. But the negotiations in connection with this service cover a very considerable length of time, and the best possible arrangement we could make to give the people of this island connection with the mainland-and this was the only connection-was according to the terms of this agreement.


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely, if it was found out that this man could not operate on the $4,000 subsidy, it would have been much more businesslike, instead of giving the increased subsidy of $11,000, to have investigated, and if you found that he could not make it go for $4,000, to have said to him, " We will give you $5,000," and let him operate on that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: He would not take it.


Charles Edward Johnston: But instead of that, you increase the subsidy by about $7,000. When he sold you the boat he got $40,000 and stuck it in his pocket. Now he comes back and says, " I will not operate unless you give me $11,000," and $7,000 of the $11,000 is used to pay on the boat. The government is paying that, and the other $4,000 is left as operating expenses.


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is certainly so, and at the end of the period the government is paying for that boat again and the man has $40,000 in his pocket and $4,000 on which to operate the boat. If that is not a nice piece of business for him, I should like to know what is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Railway service.
US. Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements - capital - further amount required, $26,556.
Gordon Graydon: Why is the additional amount required for the Hudson Bay railway?

Supply Bill


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Last year the sum of $11,000 was voted for construction and improvements on the Hudson Bay railway. During the year it developed that further requirements necessitated an expenditure of $26,556, to cover additional works on the railway and at the terminals. This is the amount to cover these works by way of sidings and facilities at the terminals in Churchill.


Gordon Graydon: Just the usual improvements year by year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
m. Maritime Freight Rates Act-To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1942-43 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 1942 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways-further amount required, $684,861.04.
Gordon Graydon: What was the amount originally provided under the Maritime Freight Rates Act? I notice there is quite an important further amount required here, and I was wondering what the original amount was, and why it was increased?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Under the terms of the act, twenty per cent of the freight rates have to be reimbursed to the Canadian National Railways and other railways, and the net amount required each year is difficult to estimate at the beginning of the year. It has been the practice every year to vote some $3,350,000, and it was voted last year as in the past. During the year it developed that the traffic and the volume of freight in the maritimes were much larger than in the past, and therefore a larger contribution on the basis of twenty per cent had to be made. This is the net difference between the amount voted last year and the amount which is due the Canadian National Railways.


Gordon Graydon: Largely on account of war-time conditions, I suppose?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
72537-1X51	j


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move the following resolution covering the amounts dealt with a few moments ago in committee of supply:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943, the sum of $2,694,361.76 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into com-mitte thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall I report the bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a fourth clause.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the unanimous
consent of the committee of the whole there is a clause 4 which I will read.


Gordon Graydon: What does the Chair
mean by that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill was drafted on the assumption that it would be passed on or before March 31. It was not. Therefore the bill had to be redrafted in such a way that an additional clause was inserted, necessitated by the fact that the bill was not so passed. That clause reads:
3.	Notwithstanding the provisions of The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, the amounts appropriated by this act may be paid, at any time on or before the thirtieth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, and such payments shall be deemed to-have been made in and be chargeable to the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three.


Gordon Graydon: Does that follow the
exact wording of previous bills of this kind?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. The last
I have ever been able to hear of was in
Supply Bill

1935-36. Every other bill has gone through before the end of the fiscal year. I have no doubt it does.
There is nothing dangerous about it; it is just authorizing payment in April as if it had been made in March.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Gordon Graydon: The minister read
"clause 3." If he really means clause 4, I think he should be corrected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I mean clause 3. The Chairman called clauses 1, 2 and 3, and now he is calling clause 4. I will read clause 4 if it is desired, but clause 4 is in the former draft which the Chairman had before him. It is a detailed account of the sums expended under authority of this bill.


Grote Stirling: New 3 and old 4?


James Lorimer Ilsley: New 3 and old 4. It is
strictly correct for the Chairman to say, Shall we now read clause 4?
Section 4 agreed to.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall I report the bill?


Gordon Graydon: My understanding is
that the schedule must also be passed. Here we have a bill in our hands that is not complete. We do not mind facilitating these matters, but I think we must have it absolutely regular.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I think the schedule
has to be called.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the schedule pass?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gordon Graydon: If the schedule did not
pass you would not have any money; so thank us for something.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I should explain that the assent will not come until Monday. I considered it extremely important to have the assent at least for the other two bills to-day, as announced by yourself, Mr. Speaker. But it was put off in the hope that this bill would go through; then it was understood that some debate would probably develop on this bill in another place, and then it became apparent that it would be impossible to get assent to this bill at least. Therefore it was considered advisable under all the circumstances to defer assent to all the bills until Monday.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the house adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Monday, April 5, 1943