1940-06-11

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As the house will proceed in a moment to government notices of motions in order to take up the motion standing in my name respecting the defence of Canada regulations, I might perhaps be permitted to

Greenland-Canadian Representatives
give hon. members one or two communications and statements which I believe they would wish to have immediately and which otherwise might not be reached in the course of the afternoon.
The first communication is one received this morning from the High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain stating that His Majesty the King had given his approval at Buckingham palace at 10.55 a.m. British summer time to-day to the proclamation declaring that a state of war exists between Canada and Italy as and from the 10th day of June. The proclamation has since been published in the Canada Gazette, and I would ask the permission of the house to allow it to be printed in Hansard:
Proclamation



L.P.Duff,

[Stage Direction]
Administrator.
[Stage Direction]
Canada
George the Sixth, by the Grace _ of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India;
To all to whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may in anywise concern,
Greeting:
A Proclamation
Ernest Lapointe, Attorney General, Canada. Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada We have signified Our Approval of the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with Italy exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of June, 1940.
Now, therefore, We do hereby declare and proclaim that a State of War with Italy exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of June, 1940.
Of all which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In testimony whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor The Right Honourable Sir Lyman Poore Duff, a Member of Our Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Chief Justice of Canada and Administrator of the Government of Our Dominion of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of June, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty and in the fourth year of Our Reign.
By Command,
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	The house, I am sure,
would wish to know that I received this morning the following telegram from His Majesty the King:
Buckingham Palace, London,
.	June 11, 1940.
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
I am grieved to hear of the untimely death of Mr. Norman Rogers and sincerely sympathize with you and the members of the government of Canada in the loss of a colleague whose services were so valuable at the present juncture both to the administration and to Canada.
George R.I.
Hon. members, I believe, would also wish to hear the following communication which was dispatched yesterday to myself and received this morning from Major-General Andrew McNaughton, the officer commanding the first division of the Canadian overseas active service force:
We have just heard of the fatal accident to the Honourable Norman McL. Rogers, Minister of National Defence, and all ranks of Canada's forces overseas join in expressing our deepest sympathy to you and to your colleagues in the government of Canada in the great loss you have sustained, and we ask that our heartfelt sympathy be conveyed to Mrs. Rogers and her family in their great loss. By a single-minded purpose, his tact and his understanding Mr. Rogers had endeared himself to all with whom he came in contact. For myself, I shall always be very grateful for his patience and for the consideration which he showed to me in the difficulties inseparable from mobilization and for the support which he continued to give.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a statement which
I should like to make to the house with respect to Greenland:
Members of the house are aware that the seizure of Denmark by the Germans created a problem for Canada as the nearest neighbour of the Danish possession of Greenland. The situation was given immediate attention.
The local authorities in Greenland are continuing to administer its affairs. The German-controlled government in Copenhagen is exercising no authority.
In view of the fact that the people of Greenland normally obtain most of their supplies from Denmark and intercourse has now
Industry and the War

been suspended, the Canadian government considered it should assist in maintaining the economic life of the island. The steamship Nascopie, which is regularly used in the Canadian eastern Arctic patrol, was dispatched on a special voyage with supplies to Greenland. It arrived last week and will shortly bring back a return cargo.
We have thought it desirable that our government should be continuously informed of the situation in Greenland and be in a position to discuss with the local authorities there any questions that might arise. Steps have accordingly been taken to appoint a consul and vice consul to Greenland. Mr. Kenneth P. Kirkwood, until recently first secretary at the Canadian legation at the Hague, has been appointed consul to Greenland and has already taken up his post there. Mr. Kirkwood, who was born at Brampton, Ontario, and is a graduate of the university of Toronto, after serving in the last war, first in the infantry and later in the air force, and working in the Far East, entered the External Affairs service in 1928. He was stationed at Washington and Tokyo before being appointed to the Hague. Mr. A. E. Porsild, who was bom in Greenland and is a member of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources, has been appointed vice consul. The United States has also appointed consular representatives in Greenland.
I may add that subsequently to Mr. Kirkwood's ' appointment, steps were taken to have Mr. E. D. IVlcGreer at the Canadian legation in Japan, and M. Pierre Dupuy of the Canadian legation staff in France given the position and duties of consuls in addition to their existing work.



INDUSTRY AND THE WAR


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or two ago my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke of the conference which a few days before had taken place between representatives of the manufacturers' association and the government. I intimated to him at the time that the government and the manufacturers had agreed that the best method of proceeding in the matter in which they were mutually concerned was to have a message sent to our high commissioner in London which would set forth the views both of the manufacturers and of the government with regard to Canada's capacity for producing

munitions and other essential war materials, and the desire of both to have this capacity made use of to the greatest possible extent. I should like to read to the house, in order that it may be of record on Hansard the communication which has since been sent by the government to our high commissioner. It, better than anything else, will make perfectly clear the position of both parties with respect to the matter referred to. The communication was sent by myself on June 8 and was as follows:
On Thursday, June the 6th, our government received a lar^e delegation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to discuss the situation with respect to the manufacture in Canada of munitions and supplies for the United Kingdom and allied governments.
The delegation expressed great concern that Canadian manufacturing capacity continued to be used to such a small degree in the supply of essential war materials for the allied governments, despite the willingness of Canadian manufacturers to utilize to the full the resources of their plants for this purpose.
As you know, the government, both prior to and since the outbreak of war, have on many occasions both directly and through yourself, drawn the attention of the United Kingdom government to the availability of Canadian industrial resources, and recently in a telegram to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I drew Mr. Churchill's personal attention to Canadian resources in this respect.
At my suggestion that they prepare a memorandum as to what points they felt should be emphasized in representations to the United Kingdom government, the delegation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association have sent me on June 6th the following communication:
The communication is then quoted in full as follows:
Dear Mr. King:
On behalf of the members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, I beg to thank you and your colleagues for receiving their delegation to-day.	,
We realize fully the burdens which members of the cabinet are bearing and the many demands on their time and only the vital importance of war production would have caused us to seek an interview with you at this critical time. We are very grateful to you and your colleagues for the patient hearing which was given to us and also for the extremely interesting and valuable information that we received.
You were kind enough to offer to cable immediately to the Hon. Vincent Massey, High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom. to ask him to take up with the British government the matters we discussed with you. You suggested that we prepare some notes which might be of some assistance in the drafting of your cable and we are glad to take_ advantage of the opportunity which you have kindly given us, and beg to set forth the following suggestions:
The suggestions are in quotations as follows:
"At the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Winnipeg, May 29, 30 and 31, manufacturers from all parts 9f Canada expressed themselves very strongly in

Defence of Canada Regulations
favour of mobilizing immediately the intelligence, skill, equipment and capacity of Canadian industry. They offered every possible cooperation to the Canadian, British and French governments in this terrible emergency. They expressed surprise and disappointment that, following the visit of their mission to England last summer and the presentation of Canadian industrial capacity, which was so well received in England, and the prompt appointment of a British mission to Canada, Canadian industry is being used so little up to date.
"To-day, a representative group of leading Canadian manufacturers met the Prime Minister and eleven other members of the cabinet in Ottawa and had a very helpful conference.
"Will you kindly discuss with the British government the following points which were made by the representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to-day:
1.	Canadian manufacturers made war supplies to the value of $1,200,000,000 for the Imperial Munitions Board during the last war. This fact proves the capacity of Canadian industry. Canadian industrial expansion since then has made possible vastly increased manufacturing facilities, and a wider range of products, involving greatly improved technique. Full particulars were presented to the service departments of the British government by the association's mission to England last summer. This is in your possession.
2.	Canadian industry again extends every possible cooperation to the British, French and Canadian governments.
3.	There is available in Canada a great amount of industrial capacity, especially in the engineering, machinery and metal working trades with highly skilled technical staffs. Over a year ago, a survey of one hundred plants showed that these had available 3,000,000 square feet of floor space. Very little of this is in use now.
4.	There is a great deal of machinery, equipment and tools used in peace time manufacturing, that can be adapted quickly to war manufacturing with good results in a general mobilization of industrial resources.
5.	The time for placing small experimental orders is past. The British and French governments should advise immediately what they want in large quantities, and give Canadian manufacturers an opportunity to learn what is expected of them. On receipt of this information Canadian manufacturers will make their plans accordingly so as to use their plants to the best advantage."
That is the end of the suggestions which appear in quotations. The letter continues:
Permit me to assure you that the members of the delegation who met you to-day keenly appreciate your kind offer to cable Mr. Massey asking him to take up our suggestions with the British government.
Thanking you on their behalf, I remain, Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Harold Crabtree, President,
Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Then my telegram to Mr. Massey continues as follows:
The government continue to be of the opinion that Canadian plants might be utilized to a far greater extent as a source of supply for the
allied governments, relatively free from the danger of hostile action, and you are accordingly directed to bring this matter once more to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom, setting out in particular the representations of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as quoted in paragraph five of this telegram. I shall be obliged if in so doing you will inform the government of the United Kingdom and the heads of the departments concerned that our government concur in the views expressed by the association and repeat the assurance of our willingness and readiness to do everything possible to assist in the development of increased production in this country to meet essential war needs.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to ask my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply to reply to that question. As a matter of fact I think he has already made a statement in the matter.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Yes, he did.


Mr. HOWE:: The statement is correct. I think that is true; I did make a statement upon it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to lay on the table of the house an order in council approved yesterday which applies the dispositions of the defence of Canada regulations concerning the registration of alien enemies and the prohibition against the possession or use of firearms to all persons of German or Italian racial origin who have become naturalized British subjects since September 1, 1929; that is, within the last ten years prior to the outbreak of the war.

Defence of Canada Regulations
These will have to register and are forbidden to use firearms. In the same order in council authority is taken to photograph and fingerprint all persons who are detained under section 21 of the regulations or who are in lawful custody charged with or convicted of any offence against the regulations.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whereas, under the War Measures Act, chapter 206 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, it is provided that the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and may make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may, by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion, or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
And whereas, in view of the existence of a state of apprehended war, a proclamation, under the said War Measures Act was issued on September 1, 1939, and measures for the defence of Canada have been taken thereunder;
And whereas, on September 3, 1939, P.C. 2483 was passed under authority of the said War Measures Act, being the Defence of Canada Regulations, numbered 1 to 64 inclusive;
And whereas, since that date several orders in council have been passed, amending, altering or adding to the said regulations;
And whereas, the sole reason for the authorizing of such regulations and amending regulations was that the public interest and the security of the nation required the making of regulations with respect to such matters as internal security and the prevention of sabotage, the treatment of aliens, the control of means of communications, the safeguarding of information likely to be useful to the enemy, the control of trade, shipping, civil aviation, transport and other activities;
And whereas, it is deemed advisable that a committee of the house consider the said regulations as amended to ascertain whether such regulations reasonably meet the requirements of the country in time of war;
Therefore be it resolved, That a select committee of this house consisting of the following members: Messieurs Bertrand (Laurier), Brooks, Claxton, Coldwell, Diefenbaker, Dupuis, Factor, Green, Ilsley, Marshall, Maybank, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), Ross (Calgary East), Slaght, and Turgeon be appointed to consider and review the aforementioned regulations; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house are already aware of the purpose of this motion, namely that of establishing a select committee of the house to review various enactments in the nature of defence of Canada regulations which have been made.
May I at the outset say a word respecting the regulations themselves. At the beginning

of the special session of parliament held in September of last year the government tabled in the form of a red book the Defence of Canada Regulations which had been enacted prior to the reassembling of parliament. That volume contains a very full statement as to how the regulations came to be enacted. May I at this time say a word to bring to mind the essential features and circumstances in connection therewith?
First of all I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that the committee which had to do with the drafting of the regulations was established under order in council of March 14, 1938; that was as long ago as two years and three months. The committee was established some months' prior to the conference which took place at Munich. It was a standing interdepartmental committee on emergency legislation, and was appointed under the authority of a minute of council dated March 14, 1938. I believe that fact of itself will show that quite some time ago the government had very much in mind a possible emergency which might arise, and was taking early action to anticipate one of the first matters which in that event would require consideration, namely internal security and related subjects, so that regulations essential to these ends could be put into force immediately, should the emergency arise.
The committee was composed of leading members of different departments of the public service. It was under the chairmanship of Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C. of the Department of Justice. Mr. J. F. MacNeill, K.C. of the same department was its secretary.
The terms of reference were:
To inquire into and report upon the whole question of legislation required in the event of war, or emergency real or apprehended.
The terms were expressly set out in the following general instruction set forth at the outset of the above-mentioned minute of council, namely:
That it is expedient in the public interest to institute standing interdepartmental committees to inquire into and report upon the practical problems concerning Canada which might arise in time of war or emergency, real or apprehended, and the measures to be taken in the event of a decision being duly reached at the time that war or emergency measures be taken on behalf of Canada.
As hon. members are aware, the War Measures Act was already on the statutes, and when the war began action was immediately taken under that act to have the various regulations for the defence of Canada duly enforced. The regulations themselves are set out in full in the report.

Defence oj Canada Regulations
I wish to quote only this one further passage from the report itself, namely the recommendation of the committee to the government made in July, 1939, just two months before the war. It is as follows:
To facilitate reference we submit a summary of our recommendations as follows:
(a)	that the government be invited to approve in principle the draft Defence of Canada Regulations submitted herewith.
(b)	that the government approve that the said regulations be immediately printed and distributed to such officers in the government service as will be required to administer them in ease of need.
The foregoing recommendations were immediately approved by the cabinet.
Following this summary there is printed in the book containing the Defence of Canada Regulations a copy of the order in council under which the various regulations were put in force. That order in council is dated September 3, 1939.
Hon. members will have noticed that in the motion as I placed it originally on the order paper there appeared the following:
And whereas, further, a certain measure of criticism has been directed towards some of the aforementioned regulations as alleged to constitute undue and unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject;
And whereas it is deemed advisable that parliament consider the matter; therefore be it resolved, that a select committee of this house-*
And so on. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that up to the day of the meeting of parliament the criticism which had been directed against the government respecting the regulations was that they were too severe, that they went too far,'and that they tended to deprive citizens of liberties in directions beyond which it was thought the government should deprive them. It was for that reason, knowing the situation as the government knew it, that we felt it would be advisable to have these regulations referred to a committee of the house, so that the members of the committee, after careful examination of the regulations, and after learning of conditions, as they would learn of them in committee, might see for themselves whether or not the regulations went too far.
The house had been in session only a short time when criticism began to be directed at us from an entirely opposite direction, not only from outside the house but also from some hon. members in the house. The government was being criticized on the score that the regulations did not go far enough. It was urged that they should be made more severe and to apply more widely, and that more action should be taken under them.
In view of that change in the criticism offered, I altered the motion as originally presented to the house, with the result that in part it now reads as follows:
And whereas, it is deemed advisajble that a committee of the house consider the said regulations as amended to ascertain whether such regulations reasonably meet the requirements of the country in time of war.
In other words, I have broadened the motion so that the committee will have power to examine its subject matter from all sides, make its observations thereon and from time to time express its opinions respecting the same as it may wish, in regard both to the aspect of the rigidity and severity of the regulations and the other aspect of the necessity in some particulars to make them more rigid and extensive than they already are.
May I point out that the criticism of the government taking place in Canada, from these two points of view, is paralleled almost identically by what took place in the United Kingdom itself. In the United Kingdom, when the war broke out, it was necessary to provide regulations for the defence of the realm, just as it has been here for the defence of Canada. The criticism that was made of the government in Great Britain shortly after the regulations had been put in force was that they went much too far. If hon. members are interested in reading the nature of the criticism, they will find in the parliamentary debates of the British House of Commons, the official report for Tuesday, October 31. 1939. that the government had been very severely criticized for the rigidity of the regulations, and was obliged to agree to the regulations being referred to a committee for careful study and report. However, with the change in feeling that the treachery and other activities of the fifth column in the different countries aroused when Denmark was overrun and Norway was attacked, and later when Belgium and Holland were attacked, the whole tone and trend of public criticism were completely altered, and the government from that time on began, indeed, was compelled, to enact measures infinitely more drastic than anything that had been contemplated by the original defence of the realm regulations.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this illustrates something that we would do well to keep in mind at all times. As I said the other day, there are times and seasons for all things. Some things can be done at one time which cannot with propriety or wisdom be done at another, some things, if done at one particular time, which if done at another might serve a useful purpose, may create a situation worse than the situation which they are intended to remedy. The government has always been

Defence of Canada Regulations
careful to watch public opinion in that respect in order to see, not that it may satisfy one extreme or the other, but that as nearly as possible its course may be a sane and reasonable one and one likely to appeal to the country generally.
I may say with respect to the scope and the rigidity or severity of the regulations as enacted at the outset, that so far as the government is concerned we fully anticipated that the minute war started it would take a much more violent form than it did. In other words, our view was, so far as we had been able to formulate it from sources across the sea, that in all probability there would be an immediate attempt to attack the British isles in particular by air, that there would be a beginning of such violence that much would be occasioned in the way of concern for internal security as well as for external defence. The situation turned out to be quite different. As a matter of fact, the condition, so far from being of the active intensity anticipated, was what might be described as almost static for many months. Most of the actual fighting was outside the British isles, being largely at sea or in the air over the sea rather than over the land. Because of that particular strategy on the part of the enemy the necessity for the regulations that had been passed for purposes of internal security did not make itself as manifest as would otherwise have been the case. There grew up as a consequence this criticism against the severity of the regulations.
In Canada criticism was expressed pretty generally in different parts of the dominion. While our recent political campaign was in progress, communications were addressed to leaders of the different parties and groups in the house asking what their respective attitudes would be toward these regulations if they were returned to power. I should like in this connection to read a communication which was sent to me by the Civil Liberties association of Toronto, as well as my reply. The Civil Liberties association is a responsible organization. Its president is Mr. B. K. Sandwell. Its membership comprises persons in positions of authority in different parts of Ontario. The association has since published the communications they sent to the leaders of the political parties, also the views of its members on democracy in war time, and particularly on the defence of Canada and censorship regulations. These have been put together in the form of a printed memorandum which I understand has been sent to all members of the house. The introduction to this memorandum is signed by Mr. B. K-Sandwell, president, and reads:

A few weeks before the general election a group of Toronto citizens addressed a letter" to the leaders of the political parties in Canada, asking for some public assurance that they would undertake to have the defence of Canada and censorship regulations submitted to a systematic revision by a parliamentary com' mittee as soon as possible.
The citizens group was greatly encouraged by the response of the party leaders and particularly by the warm assurance of the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, that it was his intention to submit -the regulations to such -a committee as soon as a new parliament was summoned.
The Civil Liberties Association was formed by the group; a further study of the regulations was made, and specific^ objections to particular sections of the regulations were noted in the hope that, when the parliamentary committee proposed by the Prime Minister was formed, it might find such a specific record helpful in its work of revision. The news of the calling of parliament prompts the Civil Liberties Association to offer this record now.
Signed for the council,
B. K. Sandwell
President.
As I have indicated, that memorandum was prepared in the month of May. The letter sent to me during the general elections was dated February 5. It read as follows:
The Right Honourable W. L. M. King,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Prime Minister:-
In war, the duty of government is to be vigilant to suppress sabotage and other forms of assistance to the enemy.
For this purpose emergency powers are necessary and regulations are passed which must incidentally interfere with the traditional liberties of democracy.
But this interference should not be more than is needed for the efficient prosecution of the war. Thus regulations should not, by vagueness of expression and unwise application, become a means to the unnecessary curtailment of democratic rights.
This has been most clearly recognized in Great Britain, where freedom of expression has been substantially retained. When emergency' regulations came before the British parliament, they were criticized from all sides of the house and were submitted by the government for revision to -a committee of all parties. As reenacted, they carefully define the powers and offences involved so as to safeguard personal freedom and freedom of expression.
We believe that Canada should follow the British example.
Defence of Canada -and censorship regulations have been passed in Canada under the War Measures Act but have not been submitted for parliamentary revision.
The regulations, if applied without moderation and good sense, will cause bitterness and divisions which would impair the prosecution of the war and reconstruction thereafter.
Furthermore, the good will of the United States and its citizens towards _ the British empire as a whole may be prejudiced if it

Defence oj Canada Regulations
appears that the totalitarianism we are combating in Europe is making inroads in Canada.
We therefore respectfully urge that you, as the leader of one of Canada's political parties, .should publicly undertake that, upon election, you will take steps to have all defence of Canada and censorship regulations submitted for systematic revision to a committee of parliament as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of a group of Toronto citizens, a list of whose names I have the honour to enclose.
William C. Grant,
Secretary.
To this communication I replied on February 8, 1940, as follows:
Dear Mr. Grant:-
I wish to acknowledge your letter of February the 5th, with which you enclose a letter of the same date, addressed to me, over your own signature, on behalf of a group of Toronto citizens, regarding the defence of Canada and censorship regulations.
May I say at once that my colleagues and I fully appreciate the great importance of safeguarding the traditional liberties of democracy under war time conditions. I wish to assure you, and the members of the group associated with you, that so long as this administration holds office, every precaution will be taken to ensure that the greatest degree of freedom, consonant with our belligerent status, will be preserved.
With reference to your suggestion that the defence of Canada and censorship regulations be submitted to a committee of parliament, 1 may say that it has always been the intention of the government that these regulations, indeed all legislation enacted under the War Measures Act, should be subject to study and consideration by a committee of parliament, and I may assure you that if our administration is returned to office it is our intention that this procedure be followed, when a new parliament is summoned.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
It was in compliance with the undertaking given at that time that the motion which appeared on the order paper the first day of this session was placed there. It might be well if when this committee, which no doubt will be appointed by the house, meets, I should be permitted to refer this memorandum to it in its entirety so that the committee may have before it all that the memorandum sets forth. I thought once of suggesting that the whole of the memorandum might be placed on Hansard, but it is rather lengthy and if the committee have the memorandum before them that would probably serve the purpose equally well. I might, however, place on Hansard the names of the members of the Civil Liberties association of Toronto so that hon. members may see the representative character of this particular body.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the Prime Minister leaves that part of his statement, would he say whether consideration has been given to laying before the committee,
if, as and when it is appointed, the representations that have been made on this subject by other bodies in Canada, equally responsible, equally reputable, together with the names of the gentlemen sponsoring those representations? I have in mind some that I myself have received, and no doubt the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has been flooded with them. It does seem to me that if one association is to be singled out for the submission of its representations to the committee, it ought to be possible and would be proper that the representations of all responsible bodies should be submitted to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I entirely agree with what my hon. friend has just suggested. In fact, I was going to suggest that very course myself. I was reading this particular memorandum because it was one that I thought was more representative in the character of its personnel than perhaps any other I had received excepting a memorandum which came from a number of gentlemen in the city of Winnipeg, and which I was also going to place with this one.
I have in my hand at the moment no end of communications which have come from different indivduals and different bodies with respect to the defence of Canada regulations. I shall be happy to see that all communications that have been received by me on this subject are turned over to the committee regardless of the particular views they may be advocating. I think the committee would wish to have them, and certainly the government would wish the committee to have these communications before them.
I desired to submit the two in particular which I have referred to because the one contains the letters which were sent to the leaders of all political parties during the campaign and was largely referred to throughout the campaign. The other is a memorandum on "Canadian Freedom in War-time" which has been submitted by Professor W. J. Waines of Winnipeg and is a carefully reasoned statement of the whole situation. It contains the names of so many persons whose standing will be immediately recognized both in their own community and in the country that I thought it desirable to refer to it particularly in speaking to the house on the subject.
On the opposite side, the submissions are to the effect that the government has not gone far enough. These, as I have said, are almost entirely communications which have come in since the early part of May, when the war took a different turn. They also will be submitted to the committee. Since receiving a number of communications of that character

Defence of Canada Regulations
the swing is now beginning to return in the old direction. My office is beginning to get a large number of letters to the effect that the writers believe, if not our government, at least some other governments or authorities are in danger of going much too far again. For example, I received on the 5th of this month the following communication from the National Council of the Young Women's Christian Association of the Dominion of Canada, signed by Mrs. Harvey Agnew, president. It is as follows:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
At the 16 th National Convention of the Y.W.C.A. held at McMaster University, Hamilton, May 27th-June 1st, the following resolution was passed, and on the authorization of the convention I am forwarding it to you:
"Whereas we deplore the growing tendency of some groups and organizations throughout ' the country to become self-appointed authorities to protect the people against espionage and sabotage; and
Whereas such action destroys the very basis of liberty and democracy, becomes a substitute for lawful government, creates panic and suspicion and opens the way to dangerous action motivated by private prejudice;
Through the National Council of the Y.W.C.A., we do urge the government to curtail such activity and reserve to itself the sole right to protect the people."
I imagine it would not be possible to give to the house reasons which would more amply substantiate what is proposed by the resolution, namely, the desirability of appointing a committee of this house to consider the whole question impartially, than the communications which I have just read, and which disclose the different trends of opinion as they swing back and forth with the changes of fortune in the war.
There have also been publications of which the house is no doubt aware put forth by the Canadian Association for Adult Education, dealing with this question. I have in mind the first issue, "This Freedom-A Guide to Good Citizenship in Time of War," by R. S. Lambert, published by the Canadian Association for Adult Education. I mention it because I think it is another publication that ought to go before the committee which may be investigating this subject.
May I say just this one word in conclusion. It is the purpose which the government had in its regulations at the outset, and is the purpose which the committee, if appointed, should, I think, have in mind in connection with its inquiry. Regulations must be broad enough and stringent enough to ensure internal order and to maintain efficiency of the war effort; they must not impose any unnecessary restrictions on personal opinion and freedom of

opinion. Freedom must be restricted where-ever restriction is essential to winning the war; but we must remember that we are fighting to preserve freedom, not to suppress it.
I have no doubt that the committee will view its duties from the point of view which I have just presented.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this notice of motion is one of very considerable importance. It involves among other things the question of the safety of the state in war time, and as such should in my view be approached in a judicial manner and not otherwise.
With respect to the subject matter itself, may I say that during the last war Canada put into effect under the War Measures Act regulations which had the force and effect of law. These regulations were in operation during the period of the war, and automatically died, I understand, within a limited period after its conclusion. The regulations which have been adopted under the authority of that measure prepared by the departmental committee, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has referred, are of course absolutely necessary under the conditions which have existed since the outbreak of the war.
There will always be a difference of opinion on this question of the liberty of the subject. We did not gain very easily or very lightly our liberty under the British constitutional system. A great price was paid, and of course in ordinary times that liberty is a priceless treasure to each citizen. But ever since I became a student of law I have been amazed at, shall I say, the extent to which legislatures from time to time have encroached on the liberty of the subject. More particularly has this been true of provincial legislatures which under our constitution are charged with jurisdiction over property and civil rights. They, if I may use the term, have been the greatest sinners. But this parliament has not been free from blame. Those of you who lived in communities which adopted the Canada Temperance Act, a statute which was enacted before I was born, and which was adopted, by the municipality in which I lived, more than fifty years ago and remained in force until comparatively recently, will recall that, either at the time of its enactment or shortly afterwards, this parliament made a long step towards encroaching upon the liberty of the subject when it took away from the courts of our country the right to the writ of certiorari to review convictions under that statute. This was an important step to take in peace time, but it seemed to be necessary having regard to the construction put upon the statute by

Defence of Canada Regulations
courts of appeal and otherwise in our provincial courts. The effect was, of course, that a conviction for a violation of that statute could not be reviewed. Such was the intention of parliament; and if a prosecution took place before a prejudiced police magistrate the effect in many cases was that great injustice was done to the subject. Our courts in New Brunswick got round that provision of the statute by asserting that if a question of jurisdiction was involved they would look into the case, and do justice accordingly; and as a result a large measure of the injustice which would accrue to the individual subject under that statute was taken away.
This example has been followed on many occasions, particularly by our provincial legislatures. I have no intention of following up its history, but anyone interested in research of the kind who will observe what various provincial legislatures did in days gone by with respect to the prohibitory laws of this country, will be shocked at the extent to which the liberty of the subject has been interfered with by our law-makers.
These things happened in time of peace. If those interferences with the liberty of the subject were justified in peace time, how much more are we justified in war time in preserving the safety of the state. I have purposely not referred to the padlock law which was once passed by the neighbouring province of Quebec, because I understand that that is a matter of great controversy. At the moment I am simply interested in knowing whether that law is still in effect.
Coming to the particular question of the defence of Canada regulations, the principle under which, I apprehend, these regulations are passed is the safety of the state in war time. No more important question could occupy our attention at this moment than these very regulations. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen are aware of the extent of the danger to which we in Canada may be subject because of the presence in our midst of persons of German and Italian origin and nationality. I do not intend here to-day to create any strife with respect to assertions against the loyalty and good faith of many of these people who have settled in our midst. Fortunately or unfortunately we in eastern Canada have not many people of German origin living in our communities. But heretofore those who have lived among us have been peaceful and law-abiding citizens. I am bound in truth to say that. I am not so sure that that is the case in other parts of Canada. I wish to lay before the house a few figures which I have gleaned in the last day or two with respect to the magnitude of the problem, having regard to the number of people of these two nationalities who are now living in Canada.
If you will refer to the reports of the bureau of statistics you will find that, according to the census of 1921, there were 294,635 persons of German origin in Canada; that in 1931 this number had increased to 473,544, an addition of 178,909, or over sixty per cent in ten years. Of this number, 174,000-odd were in the province of Ontario, and over 241,000, that is more than fifty per cent of the whole number in Canada, were residents of the three prairie provinces. Now, we have not had a national census for nine years, but according to the laws of this country a census of the three prairie provinces is taken every five years, and t'he last census of those provinces was made in 1936. In that year on June 1, according to the Canada Year Book for 1938, the total population of those three provinces was 2,415,000, and of this total, persons of German origin constituted 12'8 per cent. This means that in June, 1936, there were in the three prairie provinces 309,000 persons of German origin, an increase of 67,000 in five years. The figures for the four years ended June 1, 1940, are not available; but on the same basis of growth as is shown from 1921 to 1931, there are now in Canada approximately 728,000 persons of German origin. That figure may be excessive, but it is founded upon a calculation of the number who are now here, based on the figures of 1921, 1931 and 1936, and of the percentage of growth, and I believe it is accurate. In the three western provinces there would appear to be an approximate total of
475,000	persons of German origin.
With regard to the number of persons of Italian origin in Canada, according to the census of 1921 there were 66,769; in 1931 there were 98,173, a growth of over 31.000, or approximately forty-seven per cent. On the same basis of increase there would be in Canada to-day nearly 140,000 persons of Italian origin. When you add that to the total of persons of German origin you can readily understand that the number of persons of these two national origins approximate one million souls. I mention these figures to give the house and the country some idea of the magnitude of the problem.
I would point out in the second place that the immigration figures of the last few years show that more Germans have been admitted as immigrants to Canada than Scottish, Irish and Welsh settlers put together, and this has taken place while Germany has been intensifying its grip in central Europe. I must confess that this whole situation has caused me personally sufficient alarm to cause me

Defence of Canada Regulations
to accentuate it before the house and the country when nazi policy and nazi tactics are being considered.
Just how many of those Germans who came to Canada in the last six or seven years formed part of Hitler's campaign of peaceful penetration, to strike "for the fatherland" when the hour should come, may be a matter of conjecture, but Herr Hitler is on record in regard to this whole movement overseas. One Hermann Rauschning, a former president of the senate of Danzig, in his sensational book, "Hitler Speaks," recently published, tells of an address delivered by Hitler to a conference of nazi leaders from overseas countries as long ago as 1934 in which he is reported to have made the statement I am about to quote. I am going to take the liberty of reading this statement to the house because it contains, I believe, the heart and meat of the nazi policy with respect to penetration overseas for the good "of the fatherland." This is what Hitler is reported to have stated on that occasion:
As the front line of our German fighting movement-	.
"The front line of their fighting movement." *-you will make it possible for us to complete the occupation of our positions and open fire. You are the army's outposts. You will have to prepare definite enterprises for an advance of the front. You will have to mask our own preparations for attack. To-day you are perhaps the most important section of the German nation.
That is impressive language; and as to the principle which these overseas nazi agents were to adopt Hitler offered the following:
It is a good idea to have at least two German societies in every country. One of them can always call attention to its loyalty to the country in question and will have the function of fostering social and economic action. The other one will be radical and revolutionary. It will have to be prepared to be frequently repudiated by myself and other German authorities.
That is nazi technique.
I want to make it clear, too, that I make no distinction between German nationals and Germans by birth *who are citizens of a foreign country.
That is a very important element in this technique.
Superficially we shall have to make allowances for such citizenship, but it will be our special task to train all Germans without distinction unconditionally to place their loyalty _ to Germandom before their loyalty to the foreign state.
That of course is an assertion that we in Canada will absolutely repudiate.
Only in this way will you be able to fulfil the difficult tasks I shall give you. I must leave to your discretion the means by which

you train your fellow Germans to this new discipline. It will not always be possible without friction. For me success is the only criterion. It will depend on you gentlemen whether we reach our goal with comparative ease and without bloodshed. You must prepare the ground.
That is the basis of German penetration overseas under Herr Hitler, and I have made these statements and read this excerpt from the book in question as a report of Hitler's statement on the occasion to which I have referred, so that the Canadian people and the membership of this house may understand just what this German penetration means.
I come now to a consideration of the regulations themselves. The Prime Minister has correctly stated that a departmental committee was set up as long ago as March, 1938, and among the names are some of our best civil servants. The report was made in July, 1939. I do not recall that the Prime Minister read part of the report on page 6, but I do desire to call the attention of the house and of the country to the fact that the committee, in making their recommendations, had in mind that there must be of necessity under changing conditions modifications of the regulations from time to time. That is to be expected. The evolution in public opinion, to which the Prime Minister has referred, is just another expression of the changing times and the changing conditions. I know that there has been some hysteria in the country and I know that there also has been a good deal of complacency with regard to this important matter. But because public opinion is in a state of flux is all the more reason why we who are charged with the responsibility of carrying on in this court of highest jurisdiction in Canada should at least keep our feet on the ground and see clearly and speak properly.
The committee made this recommendation with respect to modification of the regulations, and they invited attention to two general considerations:
(a)	The defence of Canada regulations cannot be regarded as final.
With that statement we shall all be in agreement.
The defence plans of the departments are necessarily subject to modifications in the light of changing circumstances, and although the draft represents the present views of all the departments concerned, it is certain that as the situation changes it will become necessary from time to time to add new regulations and to modify the terms of some of those already included in the attached draft.
(b)	It is, of course, possible that not all of these regulations would be required in the opening stages of a war. The aim of the committee has been to produce a comprehensive set of regulations from which, in an emergency, the government of the day could select those

Defence of Canada Regulations
required to meet the situation existing at that time. Other regulations coukl be introduced later as the situation developed.
That, I think, is a plain statement of fact with which we shall all more or less agree.
The thirteenth recommendation is with regard to the restriction and detention orders. I appreciate at once that all the controversy that has existed and that may exist centres around this regulation. The report states:
The committee unanimously recommend all regulations except No. 21.
That, of course, is the important regulation with respect to the restriction and detention orders. The sentence indicates that even in a departmental committee there will be differences of opinion; and if among these gentlemen who have studied the regulations, who are responsible for them and who no doubt have adopted many of the regulations passed from time to time in the United Kingdom, there is any difference of opinion, how much more would there be a difference of opinion among the public, and especially the uninformed public, of Canada?
I do not think the regulations from No. 1 to No. 21 call for any comment, but certainly No. 21 and the following regulations are of substantial importance. No. 21 is as follows: 21. (11 The Minister of Justice, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any particular person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state-
Those are the words upon which I predicate any statement I have to make-the safety of the state.
-it is necessary so to do, may, notwithstanding anything in these regulations, make an order:-[DOT]
(a)	prohibiting or restricting the possession or use by that person of any specified articles;
That would mean and include arms.
(b)	imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order in respect of his employment or business. . . .
Then comes the next paragraph.
(c)	directing that he be detained in such place, and under such conditions, as the Minister of Justice may from time to time determine;
and any person shall, while detained by virtue of an order made under this paragraph, be deemed to be in legal custody.
This is a plain statement which has great implications. It means the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; and who is there among us to-day who will say that at this time the state should not have that right? That is my view. I am willing that the power of detention shall be vested in the competent authority represented to-day by this government, no matter what I may think of the government itself. Of necessity we must have power and authority which will take cognizance of what
is occurring in this country and afford the necessary protection for the safety of the state. I do not think any of us should controvert or deny that statement to-day. As to the exercise of that power and authority there may of course be some controversy, but I am not one of those who would ask the Minister of Justice or this government to repeal section 21. I think that for the safety of the state in war-time such power must be vested in someone.
I know there has been a great deal of criticism with respect to the manner in which this power has been utilized in the past. We were told in answer to a question that there were some 16,000 alien enemies registered under these reglations but that there were less than 300 internments. There is a substantial disparity between the two figures. From the reports received by the minister from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there may be good and sufficient reasons why there have not been move internments of enemy aliens in Canada; I do not know very much about the situation, having lived all my life remote and apart from places where people of German origin are located. But having regard to the influx of people into this country since the beginning of the nazi regime; _ having regard to the nazi theories with regard to the penetration of foreign countries; above everything else having regard to what we have witnessed on the continent of Europe, in Norway, in Denmark, in the Netherlands and even in Belgium itself, I am astonished that not more than 261 Germans are interned in Canada at this date.
The only observation I have to make in that regard is this. The government is charged with the responsibility of administering these regulations and in the final analysis of determining who shall be detained and who shall be released. Some observations have been made in the country and in the public press, and I believe on May 27 last by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) himself, with respect to attempted political interference. Well, I should like to say that as far as I am concerned my hands are clean. I have made no representations one way or the other. The only thing I have ever done since war broke out is something which I think is the duty of every member of this house and every law-abiding citizen in Canada. If he hears of any person of German origin talking he should report the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and let the police make an investigation and sift out the facts. When we do that I think we have done our full duty. I do not conceive that I am a detective, or that any member of this house

Defence of Canada Regulations
is a detective. I do not conceive it to be my duty to persecute innocent persons or to carry on investigations of that kind. It is a task which must devolve upon the duly constituted guardians of the law.
I hesitate to express an opinion with respect to representations which may have been made to the Minister of Justice for the release of enemy aliens. I know the pressure that is brought from time to time on members of parliament to do things and to make representations to officers and members of the government which, if left absolutely to themselves, they would not do at all. Such is democracy at its worst. Sitting in this house in days gone by, in peace time, when measures were brought down or advocated on one side or the other, perhaps measures of vital importance, the thought has arisen in my mind, as I am sure it has in the minds of the best of us and the worst of us: How is this going to affect me in terms of votes? Well, this is far removed from that consideration, but one of the weaknesses of democracy is that we do measure things in terms of votes. In connection with this enterprise, at all events, let us rise above that consideration. Surely in respect to ourselves and to our nation we should rise above any thought of how a measure may affect us personally.
Therefore I say to the Minister of Justice that I would not repeal section 21. I would retain it. But I would also hope that in the exercise of these powers, he and his officers will bring to bear the very wisest thought they can command in the discharge of their duties. I know there are certain types of intelligentsia -we call them "pinks", on the street-who object to these regulations. In my own city there is a small university. I am not going to make any attack on the professors of our universities, but I have often thought that if they had a little more to do perhaps they would not give so much consideration to these abstract and academic questions, about which we continually hear from them. I am making no attack upon them; they represent a fine type of citizenship, but respecting some matters they have very advanced ideas, and that is true, I believe, of all university professors in Canada. I would say to them this afternoon: Be a little more practical; mix with the common people, and perhaps the pink colouring will shade into a more orthodox white. That is the message I would convey to our university friends in Canada.
Since this resolution has appeared on the order paper I have had representations from a gentleman connected with the university in my home town-the son of another professor, a very dear friend of mine. He has sent me 
a long thesis on "The Vigilantes and Democracy". I read with a good deal of interest what he has written, and I told him that if I were to advocate what he has laid down in black and white in his thesis I would lose my job as leader of the opposition. I am going to ask the committee to send for that young gentleman. He is educated, and he is entitled to be heard. He is a Rhodes scholar.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is hopeless, then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, he is not hopeless, but his views may be radical. I should hope that if he came up here, were heard by the committee and subjected to the rough and tumble of cross-examination-to which I hope he may be subjected when opportunity arises-perhaps he would have some of the radical ideas knocked out of him and become a practical man with a keener appreciation of conditions which exist in time of war. I confess that when I read some of the theses advanced by the so-called intelligentsia of our country I become very impatient [DOT]-and that is the least objectionable term I could apply. Most of these gentlemen have never been up against the rough and tumble of practical life as Canadian citizens.
I suppose what I have just said with respect to college professors-or some college professors; I should make that limitation-applies with equal force to some of the preachers in this country. I am an adherent of the United Church in Canada.


Mr. THORSON:: Maybe some of the lawyers, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
sometimes thought that if I could get the ear of the moderator of the general assembly I should like to tell him something. I may have that opportunity.


Mr. REID:: But he might be just as bad.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably he is not. If he is a man big enough to hold the responsible position of moderator of the United church in Canada I should hope he would be big enough to sense the responsibility of his position in relation to Canada and to Canadians at this critical juncture in our history.


Ernest Lapointe: Doctor Woodside certainly would.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
suggest to him that in his position he should, in my view, exercise such powers of discipline and moral suasion as he may possess with such of the ministers coming under his jurisdiction as have expressed opinions antagonistic to the spirit of the regulations in order that they

Defence of Canada Regulations
might moderate their views, or at any rate have it made clear that such antagonistic expressions as have fallen from the lips of a small minority may not be considered the views of either the moderator or the great majority of the clergymen coming under his jurisdiction.
From what I know of the moderator and of the great mass of the clergy of the United Church, I am certain that they are among the most loyal of our citizens.
Section 22 of the regulations provides for the setting up of one or more advisory committees consisting of persons named by the Minister of Justice, the chairman of any such committee to be a person who holds or has held high judicial office. I am asking the Minister of Justice for some information on that point, if he speaks in the debate-and I presume he will.


Ernest Lapointe: That has been repealed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had not
that information before me.


Ernest Lapointe: It was repealed some time ago. Instead of having an advisory committee composed of two civil servants and an outsider it will consist only of a judge who sits now on the bench or a former judge who has occupied or is occupying a high judicial position.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words there is an advisory committee consisting of a high court judge?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has an
appointment been made to that position?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not yet Has it not been considered necessary to appoint such an advisory committee consisting of one person of high judicial standing? Has not an occasion arisen?


Ernest Lapointe: Since the making of the modification no single case has been submitted for review. Those who are there are staying there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words the Minister of Justice under the regulations is the final arbiter, and none of the provisions respecting appeal or anything of the kind have been brought into play?


Ernest Lapointe: Since some time. But the provision exists, of course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then there is not much to be said respecting section 22.
I have nothing to say as to section 23, but I have some observations to make with regard to section 24. I shall discuss some of the sections because I am not a member of the committee and shall not have an opportunity to appear before them; with that in mind I now place my views on record.
Section 24 deals with the arrest, detention and internment of enemy aliens in Canada. It starts out with this declaration:
All enemy aliens in Canada, so long as they peacefully pursue their ordinary avocations, shall be allowed to continue to enjoy the protection of the law and shall be accorded the respect and consideration due to peaceful and law abiding citizens, and they shall not be arrested, detained or interfered with, provided they comply with the requirements in respect of registration prescribed in the next following regulation, unless there is reasonable ground to believe that they are engaged in espionage, or are engaging or attempting to engage in acts of a hostile nature, or are giving or attempting to give information to the enemy, or unless they otherwise contravene any law, order in council or proclamation.
This brings me to a consideration of the question of subversive elements.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to indicate to him that subsection 1 of section 24, which he has just read, has also been rescinded and a new regulation substituted therefor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be so; I did not know. I thought the regulations I have in my hand were up to date, but if the hon. member says the one I have read has been repealed and a new one substituted, I shall accept his word. I assume however that the principle of the regulation is the same; it may have been strengthened. I should like to give some consideration to the matter of subversive elements in this country. It is something which is causing a good deal of concern, and properly so, in certain parts of Canada.
In a speech which he delivered in Toronto on May 15 the attorney general of Ontario referred to this matter. He gave a definition of an enemy alien and dealt with the question of the disposition of enemy aliens by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My opinion is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be greatly strengthened and be given practically the whole say, perhaps with certain reservations to which I shall allude later, as to who should or should not be interned. I do not see how it is possible for the Minister of Justice to sit here in Ottawa as final arbiter and act on the basis of written reports. The head of the mounted police in the province would have had before him the person

Defence of Canada Regulations
in question. He would have subjected him to cross-examination and observed his demeanour. He would thus be familiar with the history of the man and all the other ramifications of the case. I earnestly suggest to the minister that he over-rule the recommendation of the police only in cases of extreme injustice. As a Canadian citizen I am quite willing to leave this matter in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They should not be interfered with in the discharge of their duty.
I leave the matter there with respect to enemy aliens, but with respect to subversive elements, I should like to say a word. These elements were referred to by the attorney general of Ontario in his speech. Where an enemy alien is arrested under the defence of Canada regulations, that is the end of the matter. If he is interned, he is there; he is in legal custody and there is no trial. This may be considered an extreme provision, one which we would not tolerate in peace time; it means the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and other processes. But it is for the safety of the state in war-time, and as law-abiding citizens we must be ready to submit to this sort of thing. This power of course should be exercised judicially. In the few brief words I uttered on this subject on May 20 I referred to what had existed in the United States during the war between the states. All any hon. member needs to do to follow up this matter is to read the history of the United States during that period. The whole nation was seething with treason and sedition against the north. The government was forced to take the most extraordinary steps. Persons were incarcerated in military fortresses in defiance of the writ of habeas corpus, all for the safety of the state and the union. It was one of the strangest incidents in the history of that struggle that a member of the cabinet who recommended that course of action, subsequently, upon being appointed chief justice of the United States, delivered a judgment to the effect that that action of the government was ultra vires. I cannot understand why he should have delivered judgment in a case to which he had been a party; but it is a matter of history.
These subversive elements create a situation which is most difficult to deal with. Under the defence of Canada regulations a man may be incarcerated without trial, but an entirely different situation prevails in respect of persons other than alien enemies who have to be dealt with. The enforcement of the law is left entirely to the provinces, which endeavour to enforce the regulations against subversive elements. These people have all the safeguards of any other accused person. They may be tried under nummary conviction or on

indictment. All of us who have had to do with practice in the courts know how difficult it is to obtain a conviction, say on a charge of conspiracy. If hon. members want any better evidence perhaps my hon. friends in the far corner from Alberta will tell them what has happened in that province in connection with charges of conspiracy in the tobacco business. In most cases it is almost impossible to get direct evidence of express statements and action on the part of an accused person. These things have to be spelled out of the evidence. I take it from the speech of the attorney general of Ontario that that province has had the greatest difficulty in obtaining convictions. Yet we all know that these things exist.
If I were to make a recommendation I would ask the minister to look into this angle of the case and if possible strengthen the law in order that we may deal effectively with this most difficult situation. There are subversive elements in this country just as there are rumour-mongers and alarmists who do considerable damage. Our people get alarmed, perhaps unduly, but quite often there is basis for their alarm. The responsibility rests upon those who are charged with the government of the country. The observation which I would make to the minister at this time is that he should give consideration to strengthening the provisions of the regulations which deal with this aspect of what is admittedly a difficult situation, with a view to making it easier to obtain convictions where convictions ought to be obtained.
For some considerable time I have not had much to do with the administration of criminal law. In my practice in connection with capital cases in years gone by I had what is perhaps a unique experience. I never lost -the defence of a capital case, and I never was able to secure a conviction in any capital case in which I was the prosecutor. I have had connection with quite a number. I have no doubt that in most cases justice was done, but it has been my personal experience that except in an absolutely open-and-shut case it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction in this country. I have great respect for our jury system, but it slips at times. On one occasion when I was defending a man one of the members of the jury did not have the manhood to state in advance that he did not believe in capital punishment. Certainly he would not vote to convict a man, and this is an illustration of what I mean. I hope the minister will give consideration to this particularly difficult phase of the matter.
Section 26 provides for a tribunal and an appeal. I would ask the minister if there has been any exercise of the appeal functions under

Defence of Canada Regulations
this section. I understand that Mr. Justice Hyndman has been appointed to head the tribunal. That, I think, was a good appointment; he is an experienced jurist and a judge of high standing.


Ernest Lapointe: May I tell my hon. friend at once that this sort of appeal on the part of an enemy alien incarcerated was taken away by an amendment that was made some time ago. I found out that in no other belligerent country was any similar right to appeal given to an interned enemy, that Canada was more broadminded in that regard than any other country. An amendment was made and there is now no longer the right of appeal on the part of an alien enemy who has been incarcerated upon reports by the police and other officers. Of course the Minister of Justice always has his discretion; he could release any man who had been interned unfairly. But that is not an appeal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. I am going to deal with that a little later. I am glad the minister has made it clear that appeals have been abolished, because I know that in England appeals are not allowed. The provisions of the regulations in England have been drastically enforced. I hold in my hand a copy of the London Spectator of May 17, 1940, a well-informed journal which I have read for a good many years. Its editorial, which I shall quote, contains a statement which I have not been able to verify through official channels but which I accept as correct. Under the heading "Enemy Aliens in Britain" it says:
In view of the treachery from within which has played so sinister a part in all of the German invasions the safety of the country demands that no half-measures should be taken to guard against it here-
That is in England.
-even if hardship is imposed on many innocent persons. The Home Secretary has ordered the internment of all male enemy aliens between the ages of sixteen and sixty in the eastern counties of England and Scotland (excluding London) and the channel counties to the east of Dorset. Male aliens of whatever nationality-
Male aliens of "whatever" nationality:
-in the same areas must live under severe restrictions. This drastic treatment of foreigners the majority of whom are perfectly loyal to the allies is regrettable, but there is no alternative. It is promised that the measures will be mitigated when circumstances permit. Amongst these aliens it may be taken as certain that there are some who are in the employment of the nazis, awaiting the moment when a blow will be dealt and their prearranged services in the rear will be counted upon. This is a ease when the innocent must suffer for the guilty, as they would, no doubt, themselves recognize. No chances can be taken when so much is at stake.
I do not suggest that that situation has a parallel here. However, it is only a difference of degree, and if I were to make any criticism of the minister's administration, judging merely by the question of numbers, I would say that he has been too lenient. There was a question on the order paper asking for the names and numbers of those released, and the reasons for release. I appreciate the fact that the reasons should not be divulged. The minister in speaking of the matter referred to the parallel of the release of convicted prisoners on parole. The parallel was a good one, but I do think we ought to know something more about the number who have been released. If there is any criticism of the minister, it would be that he has been altogether too lenient in this matter.
Section 26 (7) of the defence of Canada regulations-I understand that it has been repealed and an amended section substituted- provided:
Nothing in this and the two preceding regulations shall prevent the Minister of Justice from ordering the release of any enemy alien from arrest, detention or internment, or from ordering the arrest, detention or internment of any enemy alien.
There must of course be authority in some body to carry on under these provisions, but 1 submit with great respect that this is altogether too much power to place in the hands of any one man, no matter how eminent or fairminded he may be. I would hope that in the exercise of that power the minister gathers about him a body of judicially minded men to advise him, and I have no doubt that that is exactly what he does do. But the language of the section, speaking baldly, puts too much power in the hands of any one man, and I suggest, not that the section be repealed, but that it be strengthened so that the minister will share with some advisory board of men of high judicial capacity the function of ordering arrest, detention or release, as the case may be, so that there can be no question at all of the exercise of a judicial discretion as distinguished from a ministerial discretion. I hope the minister will appreciate the distinction I am endeavouring to make.
Section 63(2) provides that where no specific penalty is provided every person convicted shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to both fine and imprisonment; but any such person may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada or of the province, be prosecuted upon indictment. The punishment then, of course, is very much more severe. The point I wish to make is this: The regulations provide for election only on the part

Defence of Canada Regulations
of the prosecution. These regulations are severe enough in most cases; why should persons other than those interned who are charged under these regulations and who have no right of recourse to the law, not be given the right of electing to be tried upon indictment? I think there is a tendency in the 'rial of criminal cases to take away from the accused the absolute right of election for trial by a jury-a right from which we should not lightly depart. I am putting the point to the minister as a query. There may be good reason why it should be this way, but I confess it is not clear to me why the attorney general, representing the prosecution, has the right of election to prosecute either by summary conviction or upon indictment, while the accused has no right of election. It seems to me to be a denial of a substantial right of justice.
I have no objection to the reference of this matter to a committee as proposed by the motion. I hope that a good committee has been set up, before whom the gentlemen who have made representations pro and con will have ample opportunity to appear and to justify the opinions which they hold. But in the final analysis the responsibility is the government's; it is for the safety of the state, and it must not be shirked.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: It is not my intention to discuss the resolution, the importance of which is apparent to the whole house. But the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the course of his remarks made reference to the number of Germans admitted to Canada during the past few years and, if I understood him aright, compared it quite unfavourably with the immigration from the United Kingdom.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say the United Kingdom. I said, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. I did not include English. I was careful not to, because the figures are the other way.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Several days ago an hon. member on the other side of the house put on the order paper a question the answer to which, if questions had been reached yesterday, would have appeared in Hansard. I wish to make a brief statement lest the remarks of my hon. friend in that regard might leave a wholly wrong impression in the country.
During the last three fiscal years the numbers of Germans born in Germany admitted to Canada were 1,240. Of these, 566 were of Jewish race who had in one manner or another escaped from Germany. I cannot at the moment give an analysis of the remainder, but

it is within my own knowledge that a considerable percentage consists of non-Jewish Germans who had escaped from Germany to get away from nazi oppression.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: How many were Men-nonites?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say how many
were Mennonites, but I know that a substantial number are of other than the Jewish race and came here to escape nazi oppression. Among these I might mention Sudeten. Germans, many of whom were bom in Germany but were in the Sudeten area when Germany took it from Czechoslovakia, and who, to save their lives, fled without carrying anything with them. I do not believe there is any Canadian who would say that under such circumstances we should not have admitted them.
So far as immigration from other sources is concerned, I might repeat a few figures which I have jotted down. From England during the last three fiscal years we received 5,909 persons, as against 1,240 immigrants of German birth. From Scotland we received 2,014. I have not the figures for Ireland. From the United States we received 12,881.
While I am sure that my hon. friend had no such intention, it occurred to me that a wrong construction might be placed upon his remarks touching this matter. For that reason I have taken the opportunity, as my slight contribution to this debate, of placing upon Hansard these particular figures relating to-immigration during the last three fiscal years.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the regulations one by one. As I understand it, the purpose of the motion before the house is to refer the regulations to a committee where they may be revised if necessary and where representations can be made either for or against them.
I would say at the outset, however, that I think a great deal of the criticism of the defence of Canada regulations has arisen from the method of their proclamation. They were proclaimed about the time that parliament was in session, but owing to the situation which then arose few members of parliament had an opportunity of examining them and they were not discussed in this chamber. The method of introducing the regulations upon the outbreak of war gave rise, I believe, to a good deal of criticism.
We had no session of parliament from early in September until the present house met, except, of course the very short session on January 25, and consequently wTe did not have an opportunity such as was afforded to the;

Defence of Canada Regulations
British parliament, of going into the regulations, of criticizing them, of establishing the committee and of making modifications similar to those which were made in Great Britain, and which in many particulars, in spite of a recent tightening-up process, still remain.
We of this group criticized the government in pre-war days because it did not deal with certain activities which we regarded as being against the interests of the state. We do not deny, indeed we readily admit, that the government in war time must have ample and adequate power to prevent sabotage, espionage and any subversive activity, provided always that a person so accused shall have an apportunity to have his case reviewed in the proper manner.
I said a few minutes ago that before war broke out, we criticized the government for not having taken action in the case of certain subversive activities. I have before me, for example, Hansard of June 29, 1938. On that occasion Mr. Grant MacNeii, who was then a member of this group and of this parliament, made this statement:
Some time ago the minister indicated that it was the intention to investigate the complaints of espionage activities in Canada under the cloak of fascist organization. I have seen photostat copies of letters placed in the hands of agents of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing that operatives are active within Canadian borders and to some extent linked up with espionage activities recently exposed in the United States. There has been considerable evidence to show that an attempt has been made to smuggle small arms into Canada, and all this has been done under the cloak of fascist organization. Can the minister make a short statement?
Then Mr. Bennett intimated that he had received similar information. The Minister of Justice replied-I think I had better read the whole paragraph:
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East): In answer, first to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeii), I may say the communications he has received have also been received by me and by the_ department, and inquiries have been made. This allegation that people in Montreal who call themselves fascists were drilling and having arms arose, first, through statements in the press from boastings on the part of so-called leaders, seekers after publicity more than anything else, that they had 25,000, 30,000 and, some were cheerful enough to say, 75,000 adherents. The number is much less than that. Well-intentioned people, even eminent gentlemen, by believing that sort of thing and giving expression to fear about it, are rather playing into the hands of those so-called fascist leaders who seek publicity. It is the same with the communists; they want publicity; if they do not get it they disappear. They live on it. We found that there was nothing as far as those allegations as to arms are concerned. Some of these people congregate in large numbers -with all the paraphernalia, shirts-I do not know whether black or brown; it is foolish
anyway-and make gestures and that sort of thing. They do, fifteen or twenty or twenty-five of them, what they call military exercises, just stand at attention and walk. There is nothing very dangerous about it, except that they make inflammatory speeches, denouncing many public men, particularly your humble servant. One of them said at a meeting that when they take office the first Jew that will be expelled from Canada will be Ernest Lapointe. But this does not prevent me from sleeping at night.
I have no doubt that the minister slept quite well.


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently they are still saying that.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. MacNeii then went on:
I am not attempting to exaggerate the importance of the fascist organization; but the situation took a different turn when a number of individuals were indicted during the grand jury sessions in the United States recently where, as I am informed, it was definitely shown that there was a relationship between those activities in the United States and similar activities in and around our important airports in Canada. I am asking the minister to exercise some restraint on organizations professing fascism, but which actually are commonly used as a cloak for espionage activities on the part of agents of foreign governments. May I ask if there has been some cooperation between the departments of Canada and the United States in this regard?
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East): Yes.
Mr. MacNeii: So that these individuals may not cross the border and embarrass us with their activities?
The answer was in the affirmative.
The reason why I have called attention to this is that to-day we are becoming quite worried over these fifth column activities, but I would point out that fascist organizations in Canada have been active in the past few years and have not been interfered with to the extent that they ought to have been. Indeed, as I have shown, there was a disposition to minimize the danger. Let us always remember in discussing these matters that nazi and fascist organizations have been encouraged and have in many instances been financed by powerful economic and social groups in -practically all the democratic countries. We must not allow the persecution of innocent people merely because they are discontented and poor. There is a very real danger that this may happen if we allow the law to be taken in hand by private organizations in our midst. Norway was betrayed by Quisling, and among the first arrested in Britain were a Tory member of parliament, a baronet, and the wife of a lieutenant-commander in the royal navy. It has been said and written that even powerful industrial and
Defence of Canada Regulations

financial groups with Canadian connections contributed financially to Hitler's rise in Germany. Perhaps I might mention one, Sir Henri Deterding, of the Shell Oil company, which has connections all through North America.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is he a Canadian?


Thomas Miller Bell: No; he was a naturalized British subject, but he has large industrial connections in Canada. I mention only an established fact, not rumours concerning other organizations that have even closer Canadian connection. I say therefore that we should keep these facts in mind as the situation develops. Should what we regard as the impossible happen and the Germans succeed in inflicting a grave reverse upon the allied arms, I am convinced that there would be found in all these countries powerful interests who would not be averse to setting up some form of dictatorship even in such democratic countries if they could get away with it.
The duty of this parliament in _ referring these regulations to a committee is to see that they are carefully defined so as to safeguard against any arbitrary or capricious action. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke particularly of section 21. I am not going to discuss this section except to say that there was a division of opinion on the part of the capable officials who drafted the regulations, and the analogous British regulation, No. 18, is not nearly so severe nor does it give such sweeping powers as the regulation to which I have just referred. When I heard the leader of the opposition suggest that greater power might be placed in the hands of police superintendents, I could not help thinking that such a policy was wrong, because in that event we should be building up in our own country something similar to the police systems which we despise, the systems that operate in certain European dictatorial countries. To my mind, power under these regulations ought to be exercised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and by the department, and I would go so far as to say that they ought to be more directly under the minister's control than under that of any of the nine different attorneys general acting perhaps in nine different ways in the provinces. Such regulations as we approve ought to be impartially enforced. I am not going to accuse the minister of having been partial in the enforcement of the regulations. No one knowing the present Minister of Justice would believe that he had wittingly done anything of the sort. But there is an uneasy feeling, and there are rumours across the country to the effect that here and there
[Mr. Coldwell.l
political influence has been exercised. I do not know how it has been exercised or through what channels, but there is that uneasy feeling, and I think someone in this house ought to bring the matter up in order that the department may have an opportunity of clearing up the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon.
member mention a specific case?


Thomas Miller Bell: I will come to that in a moment if I may. The Montreal Gazette of Friday, May 31, in a report with reference to the Canadian Legion, makes the following statement:
"We possess information which cannot have come to Mr. Lapointe's attention," President Alex Walker of the Canadian Legion said in a statement yesterday concerning Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe's repudiation of charges of political interference with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, reported to have been made at the legion convention here.
" We propose to seek an early opportunity to discuss the whole question with him," Mr. Walker stated, "and we are confident that he will understand the sincerity of our motives and our desire to be of service, and that under no circumstances would the legion be a party to any reflection whatsoever upon his personal or political integrity."
There we have a large and powerful organization, through one of its officers, stating that it has knowledge of interference of the type which is causing some uneasiness across the country. A few moments ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked me if I had knowledge of a case. I have not the definite facts concerning the case, but a question was placed upon the order paper by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), arising out of a well defined rumour which has been repeated many times in Saskatchewan; and since the Prime Minister asks me, I feel that I should mention this case in order that it might be looked into. I refer to the case of a man called Alois N. Schneider, of St. Walburg, Saskatchewan. Mr. Schneider is said by those who know him to be a pronounced and active nazi and a political supporter of the Liberal party. The allegation is made that almost immediately prior to the general election he was released and that he worked during the election, having thus been given an opportunity to do so. I say those are the statements that are being made; and since the Prime Minister asked me if I knew of any such statements, I am placing this matter before the government in order that it might be cleared up. Unfortunately, as I quite understand, the minister may not be able to give the full reasons for the arrest or release of many of these people. When the minister is bound to

Defence of Canada Regulations
state in the house that it is not in the public interest to give this information, it lends additional colour to stories of the sort I have just mentioned. As I once said before, there are matters connected with the war which would warrant this house meeting some day in a closed session in order that a great deal of the criticism, and perhaps some of the information which is not brought forward because it may not be wise to do so, might be discussed openly and freely with the government. That was why some little time ago I suggested that we might find it advisable to hold a closed session.
We are fighting a war against those who would destroy democracy; and during this period it seems to me we should endeavour to preserve in our own country the widest possible measure of democracy consistent with our public safety. The war must not be used as an excuse to take away any of the hard-won rights of the common people. Sections 27 and 62 of the present regulations as they now stand could be used to prevent a legitimate labour dispute or for the outlawing of an association of workers and producers. As a matter of fact, the British regulations have no section analogous to section 62. Such sections, if they are necessary, should be clarified and our fundamental rights should be safeguarded. That is one reason why I think it wise to refer these regulations to a committee rather than debate them paragraph by paragraph in this chamber. We submit that no person ought to be incarcerated without the right to know the offence with which he is charged and without being given an opportunity to plead his cause. That is a right deeply embedded in the Magna Charta and the Petition of Rights, and it is one that we should not allow to be set aside without a thorough parliamentary investigation. After all, we in this parliament are responsible for the preservation of these fundamental rights. I say the fundamental rights of British citizenship should not be taken away or modified without the consent of parliament; no executive should be empowered to take away any of these rights. In a war against fascist and nazi aggression we must beware lest these rights and liberties for which our fathers fought are taken away from us.
Now I should like to say a word with regard to protection against sabotage, espionage and so on. I suggest that if our forces are not at the present time sufficient to cope with these matters, the government should enlarge them by the appointment of special police or by some form of home-guard organization. If necessary, suitable returned men, or men unfit for any other service, could be enrolled in this corps. I do not like to see vigilante 15826-43
committees set up here and there, free of government control, who may take the law into their own hands. I have the greatest respect for those who want to prevent espionage and sabotage. Let us respect them properly by giving them the necessary authority and enrolling them under the direct auspices of this government, instead of allowing the private enforcement of order to be commenced in Canada. We never know how leadership may change. We have had some experience of people uniting with the very best intentions and ultimately being led into activities not in the public interest. So for this reason also I am glad to see these regulations referred to a committee, where they can be properly looked into.
In closing I should like to refer to one or two comments made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). He said he thought it would do some of our university professors good to mix with the common people. As I listened to his remarks I thought it might do some of our politicians good to mix with some university people. Practical men like the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, Mr. Chamberlain and others have been in control of the British commonwealth for the last ten years, and see where we are to-day. Practical men, controlling practical affairs, have led the commonwealth and the world into the mess in which we find ourselves to-day. Now that we are in this mess, what do we find? We find the pinks, if you like to call them that, the radicals, the idealists, the intelligentsia, the men with vision, if you will, such as Clement Attlee, Arthur Greenwood-


Thomas Reid: What about Ramsay MacDonald?


Thomas Miller Bell: Men like Herbert
Morrison, Sir Stafford Cripps and others are called in to clean up the mess which these so-called practical-minded men created. An hon. member asks what about Ramsay MacDonald. Well, Ramsay MacDonald has been dead personally for a number of years, but politically and ideally he has been dead much longer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Some one says, "Oh," but I want to say that the men to whom the British commonwealth has turned in its hour of need are the men who refused to follow Ramsay MacDonald into the National government which afflicted us until recent days. I should like to say also that we may be thankful that ministers of the United church, other ministers of the gospel, university professors and other people who are thinking for themselves are still allowed to think aloud



Defence of Canada Regulations
in Canada. If we are fighting for anything at all, we are fighting for the right to think freely and to speak freely, and those who would deny that right to the ministers of the United church or any other church, to our university professors and others, are simply advocating the very form of dictatorship which I thought we had organized to fight.
So I say I am glad to see these regulations being referred to a committee. As I said at the outset, we are anxious that sabotage be prevented. We are anxious that espionage be prevented. We are anxious that sedition of every sort be prevented during this time of war; but if we are to go forward and win a real victory, that real victory will be measured not only by the defeat of Germany and of Italy but by the extent to which we in our own land can preserve for future generations the democratic rights and liberties for which our fathers bled and died.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) explained to the house this afternoon, this motion involved originally only the harshness of the defence of Canada regulations. Hon. members of the house will realize the truth of that statement if they read what I believe to be the key paragraph of the original notice of motion, which was in these words:
And whereas, further, a certain measure of criticism has been directed towards some of the afore-mentioned regulations as alleged to constitute undue and unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject;
And whereas it is deemed advisable that parliament consider the matter. . . .
I could see no objection to that motion as it stood originally, namely, a motion referring the question of harshness or otherwise of regulations, to a committee made up of private members of the House of Commons, although the deliberations of such a committee would necessarily result in considerable delay in dealing with the questions involved. But now-now, under the amended notice of motion, the committee must cover a much wider field, as indicated by one paragraph of the motion as it now stands, reading as follows:
And whereas it is deemed advisable that a committee of the house consider the said regulations as amended to ascertain whether such regulations reasonably meet the requirements of the country in time of war.
Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it: This means that the committee will have the duty of recommending to the house what has to be done about the enemies in our midst, what has to be done about making Canada safe from the enemies within our gates. In other word's, it is no longer a

matter of the mere wording of the defence of Canada regulations; rather it is a matter of how we are to deal with our enemies on the home front. Clearly, may I say to the house, that is a question of government policy, and not one to be decided by a committee of private members.
The government have all the information; certainly they have far more information than a committee would have. Action should not be delayed by the government by referring the matter to a committee of the house. That involves weeks of deliberation; it means that the committee must act with only half the information on the subject; it means that the report of the committee will probably be hastily considered by parliament; it means that no government policy will be announced until after prorogation; it means that there will be no discussion in parliament after the government's policy has been decided upon; it means that there will be no direct way for public opinion in Canada to be brought to bear on the government.
I fear the committee will prove to be merely a stop-gap, and the subject is far too serious for such treatment.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend know that the government's policy is in the regulations, and from time to time it is altered? Even to-day I announced amendments which have been made. Others will be made. The purpose of the committee is simply to hear those who complain about the government's policy. But the policy is there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
true enough, but-


Howard Charles Green: The government's policy
may be there; the government may have a policy; but they have been very, very slow in acting in this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course that is another matter.


Howard Charles Green: That is my complaint, and I repeat that this is not a matter to be referred to a committee. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) brought down an order in council this afternoon. I say that the action taken in that order in council should have been taken weeks ago, not at this late date. And before I have finished my observations I think I shall have shown hon. members that what I say is correct.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I
understand my hon. friend to say he does not want a committee? It would be very easy to meet him.

Defence of Canada Regulations


Howard Charles Green: I think if the Minister of Justice had been following me when I commenced my remarks, he would have noticed my statement that as the motion originally stood it was quite in order to have a committee consider the harshness of the defence of Canada regulations. Now I say, let the minister have a committee, if he wishes, and there is no doubt the government will force the matter to a committee anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, just leave out the heckling, for a minute. But I say this, that the government should act in respect of this matter of making Canada safe within its own borders.


Ernest Lapointe: That is exactly what it has done.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian people are
far ahead of the government in their appreciation of the gravity of the activities of the fifth column, and the dangers from enemies in our midst. The Canadian people know, and they know only too weli, what has happened in Poland, in Denmark, in Norway, in Holland, in Belgium and in France. Only a few days ago they read in the press the inspiring speech of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Part of that press report I now read:
Mentioning measures against fifth columnists, the Prime Minister said these powers will be used without "the slightest hesitation" and that he was sorry for those "passionate enemies of nazi Germany" who are affected by orders against aliens.
Fifth columnists will be dealt with "until we are satisfied that this malignancy in our midst" has been "effectively stamped out."
After viewing Germany's "originality of malice and ingenuity of aggression" he said Britons can "certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel strategem and every kind of brutal and treacherous manoeuvres."
The Canadian people have read that press report, .and they know that Canada can prepare herself for just that same type of nazi manoeuvring. They know that the same menace has been found in South America and in North America, particularly in the United States, as has been stated time and again by the great president of that nation. The Canadian people know that there is a menace here in Canada. They know that "it can happen in Canada" despite the dreams of certain people in authority. I should like to quote from paragraph 2 of an order in council which was brought down by our own Canadian government on June 4, 1940, which shows that there is danger here. This order states:
. . . the Minister of Justice reports that he is advised that there are within Canada numerous organizations of a subversive character which are intended or are likely to be-
I stress the following words:
-prejudicial to the safety of the state or the efficient prosecution of the war.
The Canadian people know these things. They realize what nazism stands for. They know that Canadians and all other British peoples face extermination or slavery if we are defeated in this war. Let there be no mistake about that. They realize that fifth column activities really constitute a branch of the fighting forces preparing the way for troops; it is no longer just a case of espionage and reporting back to the motherland, but the fifth column is really part of the fighting forces. I point out to the Minister of Justice that the Canadian people realize that nazi sympathizers in Canada have nazi beliefs and will be ready to use nazi methods. Should the time come, we may expect that these people will use the same methods here that have been used overseas.
Our people are engaged in a life and death struggle. Our young men are being sent overseas, not as conscripts but as volunteers. Our people are straining every nerve to send more young men overseas, to produce supplies and to manufacture equipment. They are making great sacrifices, and clearly they will have to make greater sacrifices. They should not be bothered by having to watch traitors at home. They should be spared that. The Canadian people will never be able to put their hearts into the war effort until they are satisfied that adequate precautions are being taken on the home front. They can expect very little from having this question referred to a committee.
And what have the government done? The Minister of Justice had this to say on May 23, 1940, as reported on page 143 of Hansard:
It was known to the police prior to the outbreak of war that some enemy aliens were engaging in activities which in the event of war would be prejudicial to the interests or safety of the state. Some persons who were actively engaged in furthering the nazi cause in Canada were persons who had become, during the course of their residence in Canada, naturalized British subjects.
That statement shows the danger that these men and women constituted for Canada. The government interned 265 enemy aliens and 60 naturalized Germans. If my figures are wrong, I ask the Minister of Justice to correct me. Eventually there have been a total of 406 people interned, of whom 145, or more than one-third, have since been released, not by the courts, not by a judge, but by the government.
Mr, HANSON (York-Sunbury):	The
minister.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know that the minister is personally responsible; but the fact remains, and I do not think the minister

Defence of Canada Regulations
will question it, that the government have released 145 people who were considered at the outbreak of the war to be dangerous to the very life of this nation.
I cannot find the press clipping at the moment, but the Canadian press carried a report, I think it was on May 25, that a man by the name of John Ketterer had been fined $25 in Vernon, British Columbia, for possessing firearms. The report went on to state that this man had been released from Kananaskis internment camp. It is this sort of thing that is shaking the confidence of the Canadian people. It is this sort of thing that is worrying the Canadian people. Apparently this man was not sent back to the internment camp; he was only fined. According to the minister's statement, there are 261 persons now interned, of whom only one is a woman.
Also this government provided for the registration of enemy aliens, and I understood the minister to say the other day that some 16,643 had been registered and were reporting. I believe the present plan is to have these people report monthly, but complaints are being received that many are reporting not to the police, but to the postmaster in their particular community. I suggest that this should be looked into and these people made to report to proper police officials.


Ernest Lapointe: The
registrar to whom they must report is appointed by the registrar general who is the commissioner of the mounted police.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that they should report to police officers. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) will correct me if I am wrong, but I calculate from his report that 78,514 people have entered Canada from Germany between March 31, 1919, and March 31, 1939.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is in the last twenty years.


Howard Charles Green: Since the great war.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say as to the accuracy of that figure.


Howard Charles Green: Then the Minister of Justice said the other day that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were to be increased by 500, their present strength being 2,450. According to the report of the mounted police, dated March 31, 1939, the strength then was 2,603, so an increase of 500 at this time will not increase the total force that much above the peace-time strength. The mounted police cany on police duties, I believe in six provinces, and they have numerous other

duties. Many of the members of this force are serving overseas in the provost force and other units.


Ernest Lapointe: That
explains the reduction in the strength.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister that he consider taking on special constables to help handle the enemies in our midst.
Again we have been told that the government are watching these things. There has been too much watching and too little action during the last five years. The government have been watching many things. They have been watching this problem, and apparently that is their main policy in dealing with the enemies in our midst. The minister said the other night that enemy aliens who had been registered, but who were not interned, were being watched, as were naturalized Germans. I take it also that the subversive elements are being watched. You cannot watch so many people effectively. It is impracticable. I have proof of this statement in what happened recently in Vancouver. The Daily Province of June 5 quotes a letter written by the city prosecutor of Vancouver to the mayor and council, in which he reports:
On Friday last officers had occasion to search a house where it was suspected a war offence was being committed. No evidence was found, but the rather astounding fact came to light that the householder was German born, a warrant officer in the last war, registered as an alien during the present war, and was naturalized under a good Anglo-Saxon name April 30. 1940, at Vancouver.
That is the type of thing that happens and will happen so long as this government carries on a policy of watching and waiting on this very, very dangerous question.
I have certain other recommendations which I should like to make to the minister. I would recommend first, of course, that he smother this fifth column activity at once. Do not wait for a committee's report. If its report is like the report of most other committees that I have seen in this house, there will be very little action taken on it anyway when it does come in.
In the second place, Canadians are entitled to know who is for the nation and who is for the enemy. It is the duty of this government to find that out. It is the duty of the government to detain-to detain, I repeat- every man or woman who is for the enemy or who aims to wreck our institutions. Once they are detained they are no menace. Leave them loose and you need all the way from ten to a hundred men to watch each one effectively. Prosecution and fining are not enough in these cases; there should also be confinement. Further, the people who are

Defence of Canada Regulations
interned should be put to work. There are many, many things that could be done in Canada by these aliens who are interned, instead of just letting them sit in the internment camps.
Then I urge this government not to place so much importance on naturalization. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice announce to-day a new order in council which gives him further power over certain groups of naturalized Germans and Italians. I think che key to the whole situation is that the &ravest danger to Canada has been from certain of these naturalized people. Naturalization is no obstacle to a follower of Hitler. It is an excellent cloak to hide his activities. We have always been too careless about naturalization. We never seem to stress the need in Canada for a change of allegiance in mind. We allow these people who, with the best intentions, are anxious to become citizens to become naturalized, and then nobody pays any attention to them. It is all done in such an offhand way. No attempt is made to take them into our citizenship as comrades; no attempt is made to stress the importance of the step they are taking. We never try to make the applicant proud of acquiring our citizenship. And if we place so little value upon naturalization, how can we expect the man or woman who applies for citizenship to place a higher value upon it? The question of naturalization is one that could very well be considered by a committee of this house. With regard to the naturalized, I would refer the Minister of Justice to a resolution passed at the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion just two weeks ago. That resolution reads:
That the regulations for the defence of Canada should be so amended as to require registration of all citizens of enemy origin who have acquired British citizenship by naturalization-
In my opinion that goes too far. I would have suggested, "who have acquired citizenship since the great war." I notice that the Minister of Justice in the order in council fixed the date at September 1, 1929.


Ernest Lapointe: Ten years ago.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution goes on:
- -and to give to constituted authority the power to deal with such citizens in the same manner as unnaturalized aliens are dealt with if there is reason to believe that they are connected with enemy activities or sympathetic to the enemy regime, and particularly those who are known to have been actively associated with organizations recognized and developed by German consular officers.
Then I suggest to the government that they see that there are removed from key positions in this country, governmental or
otherwise, all persons who are not definitely with us in this struggle. The nazi policy, the communist policy, has been to get their men into key positions, no matter how they get there. They are to occupy key positions where they can do the most damage, and I think the government should focus attention on that aspect of the problem.
The government should also check at once the situation with regard to firearms. I understand that rifles, shotguns and arms of that type do not have to be registered except those in the possession of enemy aliens. I suggest that the government look into the whole question of firearms, establish some sort of check on their sale, and possibly provide for registration of all firearms in Canada. The legion also had a recommendation on that point which I think is well worthy of consideration:
That in order to facilitate the control of arms, provision be made that all persons shall register all firearms and explosives of any description in their possession witn power to the police to seize all unregistered arms and also registered arms and explosives when in the opinion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the arms in the possession of an individual are likely to be dangerous to the state.
I also suggest that the government might do something to help those of our foreign-born citizens who are known to be with us, help them in some way to show their loyalty. The nazis have been bullying them, threatening them that if they did not join the nazi movement their relatives in the old land would be abused, and so on. I suggest that the government do something to help the foreign-born who are with us. As a sample of what might be done I quote from the Nelson Daily News of June 4, which describes what was done at Trail, British Columbia. There are several hundred Italians employed at the Consolidated smelter in Trail. The manager of that smelter, Mr. Blaylock, who by the way is one of the great Canadians of this generation, called these Italians together and put the onus on them. He said in effect: "I put it to you to see that there is no sabotage by anybody in the Italian community in this city. If you will take that responsibility I will see that you are not interfered with." These Italians reacted as one would expect them to react. They assumed that responsibility, and they went further-I quote now from the newspaper:
These Italians decided voluntarily to give up their firearms and immediately launched a drive throughout the community to collect such arms, completing it Saturday and turning them over to the Consolidated for safekeeping.
They went on to authorize the company to deduct SI a month from the salary of each employee to be used for Red Cross purposes. I suggest that something along that line

Defence jf Canada Regulations
might be undertaken by the government in different parts of this country where there are large bodies of our foreign-born citizens.
My final suggestion is that the government should guard all vital points. Day after day in the house, when the war effort was under debate, we heard stories of this point and that point not being adequately guarded. I suggest that the government should be on the safe side and, if necessary, guard too many points. We have many, many veterans in Canada capable of doing this work and anxious to do it. and I suggest that the government allow them to guard all the vital points in this dominion.
In conclusion, may I say again that the Canadian people have the right to insist on adequate protection from enemies in their midst. The Canadian volunteers overseas have the right to insist that their loved ones and their homeland shall be free from treachery. Let the government abandon its watching policy on this question; let it take determined action at once to meet this danger. This whole war crisis is a grand opportunity for Canada to become a strong nation, but what Canada needs more than all else at this moment is strong leadership. We can grow strong only by facing these difficult problems when they arise. I repeat that the government policy of referring this question to a committee, and then sitting back and waiting until the report comes in, is not good enough and is not giving the Canadian people the leadership to which they are entitled.
On motion of Mr. Slaght the debate was adjourned.


THE LATE HON. NORMAN ROGERS STATEMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Instead of continuing the
debate this evening, I trust it will be agreeable to hon. members to take up instead the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) which has already been under consideration, and continue to-morrow afternoon the debate on the present motion.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has intimated to me that some hon. members would like to have particulars of the services in connection with the funeral of the late Minister of National Defence. The remains of the late minister are being brought to the city this afternoon. It is expected the train will arrive shortly after six o'clock. The remains will be taken immediately to the family residence. To-morrow a service which will

be entirely private, will be held at the late minister's residence at which only members of the family will be present.	_
The government have thought that, having regard to the circumstances which occasioned the death of the late minister, and which I believe will relate themselves in the minds of all to his part in Canada's war effort, also having regard to the fact that the minister was at this time of war, the Minister of National Defence, it would be appropriate and, indeed, that it would be desired by hon. members that some service should be held which would have its association with the houses of parliament. Accordingly we have decided to have the remains brought to parliament hill some time to-morrow afternoon- the exact hour will be notified to the press a little later on-and a veiy brief service will be held in the hall of the parliament buildings. At the conclusion of the service, the cortege, under military escort, will proceed to the union station. That is all I am able to say at the moment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 7, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. McLarty-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and for such purpose to supplement the measures taken by the provinces towards providing assistance to those in need, establishing unemployed persons in employment and training and fitting suitable persons for productive occupation, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantees out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: In the course of the debate on June 6, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) stated that a questionnaire had been sent to various manufacturers when the national employment commission was functioning. and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) requested that information be furnished relative to this questionnaire and

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Church
the results that followed from it. At the time I said I understood it was contained in an appendix to the report of that commission, but I find that this was incorrect. The questionnaire was sent by the Canadian Manufacturers' association pursuant to the request of the youth employment committee of the national employment commission. I would ask the unanimous consent of the committee to have the questionnaire placed on Hansard together with a tabulation of the composite reply, as follows:
The following are the facts concerning the questionnaire referred to by Mr. Chambers in Hansard of June 6.
At the request of the youth employment committee of the national employment commission, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association sent out the following questionnaire to their members in the early fall of 1936:
(1)	Have you already experienced, or do you anticipate in the near future, any shortage of skilled workers?
(2)	Have you any plan or policy for training young workers? If so, is it still operating?
(3)	Do you consider it feasible, and if so, desirable, to organize some apprenticeship or other training system for your industry?
(4)	If the answer to (3) is in the affirmative, do you think such a system should be operated entirely on a voluntary basis, or is legislation necessary?
The tabulated answers are as follows:
Question (1) Yes, 80-No, 161.
Question (2) Yes, 136-No, 86.
Question (3) Yes, 61-No. 124.
Question (4) Voluntary, 88.
Legislation needed, 13.
This questionnaire is embodied in the appendix of the report of the youth employment committee of the national employment commission.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Representing an industrial riding, I have had some experience of the kindness and courtesy of the present minister in dealing with his department and complaints on relief matters, but I must point out that there are two wars in Canada to-day. One of these is the greatest war which civilization has ever witnessed and in which we are participating, together with the mother country and other parts of the empire; the second war is an internal one. Previously in this house I said:
We have a war in Canada to-day, a war between millions of our fellow men and poverty and starvation, a war between youth and poverty. The enemy is just as dangerous as a foreign foe in war time. Against a foreign foe we unite; against our internal foe we are disunited and do nothing to cheek or repel it. When the invader is at our gates the country mobilizes its entire resources, its man power, its transportation system, its capital, but in time of depression and unemployment driving people to the *wall the industrial workers are left without any protection at all; they bear
the brunt and we do nothing but sit around and appoint commissions. Nothing is said in this bill as to the relation between the industrial worker and agriculture.
Ontario seems to be the forgotten province of confederation. I do not believe in any policy which has for its object a form of protection for youth alone and the alleviation of the problems of youth. I am for protection for all the people all the time, no matter of what age they are. Of course I am altogether in favour of any policy that will help the youth, but we must not overlook the forgotten man in industry. That forgotten man is about forty-five years of age to-day. He belongs to that class of returned soldiers who have families to support, and some industries will not give them jobs at that age. There seems to be a standard rule that militates against these men. I do not say it is the fault of the business men of the country or of the manufacturers. I do not suggest that at all, but the fact is that these men cannot get work and they have children dependent upon them. I wish to support the government in any progressive measures it may propose to aid those on relief, but it seems to me that nothing is being done for this class of our citizens. Some of these forgotten men cannot get relief. They cannot get a job. Men of forty-three and forty-five, unable to find work, unable to get any relief, are also ineligible for the army. They will not take them in. Our dear, departed friend, the late Minister of National Defence, Mr. Rogers, discussed this matter a couple of years ago when I proposed to have a national policy of work for our Canadian working men on the apprenticeship basis, but the government has made no provision for them.
There is something radically wrong with our education in this country, as the present war shows. Our young people are getting too much mere book learning, and not enough attention is being paid to such things as service to one's country, duty, sacrifice and sacrifice for one's fellows and so on. When I saw this war coming in 1937 and 1938 I proposed in this house a policy fashioned after that which was adopted in England in connection with young people out of work there. Four years ago the Minister of Labour over there the Right Hon. Ernest Brown, accompanied by the then. Secretary of State for War, made an address to some two thousand young people in the market place in York city, and in that address he stated that the government proposed to provide an apprenticeship course for young men whereby they could learn any one of nine or ten trades in different industries; this was linked up with national service for one's country. These young men

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Church
would get pocket money, lodging, food, clothing and deferred pay, and at the end of their period of training and apprenticeship they would be qualified to serve as pilots or mechanics in the air force, or they could go into any of the industries for which they had received training.
Three years ago I proposed in this house such a policy adapted to Canada's special circumstances, and I venture to say that if it had been carried out we would have men trained to-day for the air force The minister's predecessor admitted to me that what I had said was correct, namely, that the governments of Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, had spent about one billion dollars in taking care of the unemployment problem and in relief and relief works. And with what result? There is nothing much to show for it. The problem to-day is quite acute. Walking down from this building to the Chateau Laurier one encounters a good many panhandlers. I am sorry for these young men. They cannot get employment and there is no room for them anywhere. They complain they cannot get into the army. They have no relief and no food or lodging. Surely this is a federal problem. I have frequently urged this point of a national apprenticeship system with national service upon the government and this house, but the government has so far not adopted it or a register.
The unemployment problem is here to stay, and so far the municipalities appear to have been bearing the brunt of it. So far as Ontario is concerned, the municipal assistance act does not apply to that province, because Ontario will not accept it. Theoretically Ontario may come under that act, but the province will not accept it. Many municipalities wish to come under the act, but they do not qualify. Two years ago I urged as strongly as I possibly could that Canada should get busy and secure for industry some of the Chamberlain government's rearmament orders to help trade and industry here, especially unused plants, and in the manufacture of war implements and aeroplanes. A number of key men who were in the great war came from United States universities to Toronto in 1917 for their training in Canada, and after the war went home to their own country and began the manufacture in the United States of aeroplanes. Our own government-and I am not speaking of any one government only-did nothing to utilize the services of these men, who were Canadians in Canada, for similar purposes. Some of the young people who were over here after the last war went to San Francisco, where they commenced industries, and they have made millions of dollars at the Pacific coast

out of British rearmament orders, when all that work should have been done in Canada. One of the great pilots of the last war, the late Colonel Barker, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., tried to educate Canadians to take up the aviation industry and develop it for civilian and military work, and train pilots. Had his policy been followed, we would have been ready for war and have obtained huge orders, instead of one per cent of Britain's orders to the start of the war.
As far as these commissions are concerned, we may as well forget all about them. We have the Sirois report. Well, no doubt it will be committed to the archives; "earth to earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust." This is the last we will hear of that report, which cost a great deal of money-over $400,000. I have a return showing exactly what it cost, but I have not had time to look it up. Boyal commissions have been a favourite method whereby the federal government have postponed action when action was urgently needed. They have achieved nothing; that is why they were appointed. They are only advisory, and as soon as the advice is given it is discarded. That is what was done with this report; all their decisions were based on facts which were already known to everyone. The country has had enough of these Pickwickian commissions which seem to do nothing and to which no one pays any attention. It depends on the instructions they are given; and then when the report is received nothing is done about it.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word about real estate and the municipalities, because real estate cannot stand anything more in the way of taxation. If all these federal and provincial relief burdens are placed on it, it is by no fault of the well conducted municipalities. An investigation was held by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Washington, and on February 25 of this year they made a report. This is what they say with regard to loading this debt on real estate:
The past few years have been marked by important reductions in the cost of home ownership and home purchase, such as greatly reduced mortgage interest rates, easy monthly repayment plans on mortgage loans, and the abolition of special fees and excessive charges.
We did the same thing here; we reduced charges along these lines.
The prospective home owner or home buyer now has access to the lowest rates and the best terms in the history of our country. These things the private lending institutions and the government agencies have cooperated in bringing about. But other carrying costs of the property are most important to keep down if home ownership is not to be jeopardized. Outstanding is the real estate tax which literally swamps home owners in many states to such an extent that, it provides a grave danger for the future.

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Church
That is the very thing that is happening in Canada. The taxes on the property of the average member of this house amount practically to a rent in itself, because the cost of these federal and provincial relief and other debts has been loaded on real estate.
Not only do these taxes have a serious effect on individual home ownership but they hurt the entire real estate market. People and institutions both hesitate to place investment money in real estate when taxes are so high. This means that new construction is retarded and the vast amount of institutionally-held real estate is not being reduced fast enough. This "overhang" of acquired real estate in the hands of lending institutions is in itself a menace to the return of an orderly market. It is most unfortuate that high taxes are keeping prospective buyers away from these properties which should be returning to private hands once more. Undoubtedly the present rate of expansion in home construction could be greatly accelerated if the public could be assured of equitable taxes. More people could be put to work on new construction and a better economic atmosphere would prevail.
Real estate has reached the point where it can stand no more in the way of a burden. Not only have we loaded this federal burden on the municipalities; we have taken away their income tax and other revenues as well. Until 1918 the entire field of income tax was exclusive to the municipalities. In that year the dominion invaded that field, presumably just for a year or two, but they have occupied it ever since. Not only that, the provinces also have imposed an income tax, and as a result the revenues of the municipalities have been depleted so that they receive only pin-money as compared with what they would have received if they had been able to retain for themselves their own exclusive fields of taxation of all kinds which they used to have.
We in this country have been slow to notice how people have had their property taken from them. In the early days of confederation, the days of Macdonald, Cartier and Laurier, everyone was a property owner. Every man owned a cow, a mill, a small farm, a market garden or something of the kind, but that is no longer the case. Our people have become proletarians to such an extent as to threaten the economic, social and industrial future and structure of this dominion. I do not suppose much can be done at the present time to relieve this situation, because of the war, but I should like the government to give some attention to the recommendations which have been made by the mayors of the country. Many members of this house, including some of those who have come here for the first time this session, have come up from municipal councils. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who unfortunately is not in the 35826-44
house at the moment, was instructed by the federation of Canadian mayors to visit several cities in the United States and make a report on these matters. I have no doubt the minister has a copy of that report, which deals with the whole question of real estate, taxes, relief, food, rents and so on. It is a valuable report. The hon. member visited and saw the mayors and city officials of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston and New York in order to study conditions in those cities, and I think he did an excellent piece of work. We can certainly take a lesson from the United States; for when the depression came, they were ready with a report on relief and unemployment in 1927 by Senator Couzens of Detroit and his senate committee, and nearly two-thirds of the Purvis report is copied from the Couzens report.
I hope the minister will give heed to the municipalities, because no more revenue can be obtained by taxation on real estate. I would suggest that the dominion government give back to the municipalities a portion of the revenue obtained through the income tax, as the province of Ontario has done, since this was once the exclusive field of the municipalities. Give the municipalities something with which to take care of these people, or take over relief and hospitalization altogether. These unfortunate people are the victims of a cruel industrial system and some of them are unemployable. The municipalities are compelled to spend huge sums of money in connection with sanitation, relief, hospitalization, unemployment and many other matters, and it has reached the point where no one wants to own a foot of real estate. If I could only get rid of the real estate I own now, I would never own any more, because the whole structure of taxation in this country has been destroyed through the dominion and the provinces invading the exclusive fields of the municipalities and imposing on them impossible burdens never contemplated. This problem is largely a federal matter. We make the tariff; we make the financial laws, the immigration laws and all that sort of thing; yet we load these burdens on the municipalities.
I hope something may be done to help them. I realize the burden of debt the dominion must carry as a result of the last war, and the prospective debts resulting from this war, but I do hope something may be done so that any money given by this government to the provinces will be earmarked for distribution to the municipalities or go direct to them.

682	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Roebuck


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Chairman, it is with some hesitation that I have sought your recognition to-night, to address for the first time my fellow members of this historic assembly. I suppose all new members approach such an occasion with a certain diffidence, particularly if they realize the advantages which he who listens has over him who speaks. In making an address for the first time to a parliamentary assembly such as this, one is always conscious of the newness of the circumstances, of the unfamiliarity of the occasion, and of other conditions. Above all, one who is here for the first time or, rather, is on his feet for the first time in this assembly, would not have it thought that he assumes the role of a teacher to those who have possibly been in the house for many years longer than he.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, I am impelled to overcome this natural diffidence on my part because of the importance of the subject matter of the resolution under discussion this evening. Although that would be sufficient excuse for anyone, yet added to that is the interest which I have so long taken in matters of humanitarian importance such as the one involved in or arising out of the subject matter at present before us.
I could, I suppose, fancy a greater disaster; but certainly the disaster would be great indeed if it were anything like what would happen in my constituency and in many other constituencies in Canada should this resolution fail of passage. I do not suppose there is any chance of that occurring, and yet perhaps that is the test which one might apply to a measure. What would be the result were the measure not to pass?
This is a war parliament. I know that the minds of hon. members, as well as the minds of people throughout the country at large, are filled with the exceeding gravity of the world situation. I know that any question touching upon Canada's participation in the war and her effective contribution to it must take first place in our deliberations. In the very first instance, if we can, we must save the world for freedom and democracy, and we must protect our own shores from invasion, which is actually threatened at the present time. These matters come first.
And yet, second to the world problems before us are those problems of local concern associated with the welfare of our own people. After all, is it not one problem? The welfare of our own working people is really wrapped up in the problem of our foreign defence and of the preservation of the world at large for democracy and freedom. There is not very much difference between the soldier in the factory and the soldier serving in the front 
line trenches. Each is equally essential to the success of our arms abroad. I do not believe that one could draw any distinction between them from the point of view of importance; one would not draw a distinction between the man who makes and fills a shell and the man who must fire it. Each of them is equally important to the final success of our arms in the field.
For this reason I suggest to the committee that this resolution is next in importance to those which have to do with the carrying on of the war itself. I know in court work it is necessary thoroughly to understand what it is one is discussing, and for that reason I place before hon. members that part of the resolution of greatest importance, eliminating some of the features of lesser importance. I read:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
I am appalled by the very thought of what necessarily would happen in communities throughout Canada, and particularly in the community from which I come, were that resolution to fail to carry. I am not as familiar with the agricultural situation in Canada as I am with conditions in industrial and urban centres. But I shrink from a contemplation of the scenes which would occur in thousands of houses in the constituency from which I come and in the city which in part I represent-yes, and in many other industrial centres of Canada-were we in some way to withdraw from what we have been doing in the past, or if by some voluntary action on our part we even reduced the amount of the meagre assistance we have been giving in the past.
In the house and certainly in the country at large there has been a great deal of discussion on the question as to whether reliefees are undernourished; that is to say, whether our relief rates are so meagre or our relief so insufficient that those receiving it are actually undernourished. I do not purpose taking part in the debate, but I recollect a remark made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) the other night to the effect that the grandchildren of the refugees of today may pay the price of present-day food deficiencies. That was his opinion, and I accept it as the opinion of a medical authority of considerable standing in the community.
It is not necessary for us to decide the question, but I think every hon. member should agree with me when I say that whether relief is sufficient or insufficient, it would be highly undesirable were we by some voluntary act on our part to make conditions worse

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Roebuck
than they are to-day. A shortage of actual food-if there is a shortage-is not the only evil that comes from relief; and I have said that I would not debate that point. A shortage of foods is not perhaps the worst of the evils which come to the reliefee. In my judgment enforced idleness is a greater curse than a half-filled stomach. The old biblical injunction, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" was not a curse at all. It was a blessing, rather than a curse. It was a promise that labour and enjoyment should be united. And I am rather of opinion that they cannot be separated-not permanently, at all events; and if at all, only at times. War is a great disaster to fall upon any people. The war of 1914-1918 can be described as nothing less than a monster, major disaster. I am of opinion, and with some thought behind it, that the moral and physical degradation which resulted from the mass unemployment during the post-war period was a greater disaster to the manhood and womanhood of Canada than was the war itself.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated in the house the other day that a nation's chief asset is its people. That is not a new sentiment by any means. He did not invent that statement, in fact I think he quoted it. But whether new or not, I should like to join with him in that expression. I should like to pay what I think is perhaps a deserved tribute to the members of the third parties that sit to the left of the Speaker. These hon. gentlemen have seen a vision, a vision of a better social state. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has had a glimpse of the city beautiful that is built upon a hill, and I honour him for it. I cannot always tread the path that they are following, but they are travelling what they are convinced is the upward climb to the city that is built upon a hill. I give these gentlemen credit for the humanitarian attitude they have adopted since I have been listening to them here and as I knew them by reputation before I became a member of this house. There are not many in the house who are ready to give them credit.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is not in his place. He knows something about the poor of our cities. He was the chairman of a housing commission which with considerable labour and not small expense investigated living conditions in Toronto. His report was made in 1934, and in it I find the statement that 2.000 houses in that city are unfit for habitation. After making an investigation of that kind and with the knowledge that he must possess as a result of that experience and that, expenditure of public money, it seems 95S26-441
to me unfortunate that the hon. member should be wasting the time of this house and his own time in making partisan attacks upon his political opponents. He would be better engaged in joining with some of the rest of us in endeavouring to improve the condition of our fellow citizens. The hon. gentleman knows considerably more about the tanks that are to be found under waistcoats, and that walk around on two legs and frequently require to be filled than he does about the tanks which are in service at the front.
I invite him to join with some of the rest of us in attempting to find remedies for at least some of the unfavourable conditions to which I have referred. This might be possible with a display of sufficient good-will among men of good-will; it will not be found in partisan recriminations. As I say, the hon. member is not in the chamber, but I suppose he will read my remarks later. I ask him to join with me in protesting against the kind of housing which so many of our fellow citizens are condemned to use. I invite him to join with me in protesting against the cold brutality with which one province at least has kicked out the homeless, transient, single unemployed.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Which province?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: My hon. friend knows
the province; it is the one from which he and I come, the province of Ontario. I do not say that Ontario is the only province which has been guilty of brutality toward the single unemployed, but it is one of the guilty provinces. It is not so much my purpose to make charges against provinces or against those who administer the provinces as it is to call attention to the unfortunate condition of these young men. Not so long ago someone in this house described them as walking the streets and highways, sleeping in parks at night and riding the rods from place to place vainly looking for something to do. These are only illustrations, but they strike at the very vitals of this resolution.
What is involved in this resolution? I hold in my hand a report published by the Department of Labour in connection with activities carried on under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1939. At page 40 of this report I find published the amounts of money which the Dominion of Canada has granted from time to time under the advice of the Minister of Labour for the alleviation of distress in our provinces. From 1930 to the end of the fiscal year 1939A0 we have expended-perhaps this is the best money we have spent-a total of S377,000.000. In the fiscal year which has just closed, that of 1939-40, we shall have
684	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Roebuck
expended something like $30,000,000 in assisting the various provinces to minister to poverty in our midst. During that period there was spent in Ontario a total of $111,000,000. We have actually expended over $99,000,000 upon enterprises in which the provinces and dominion joined as partners.
I think every hon. member would agree that we should continue that expenditure notwithstanding the other difficulties which now confront us. This resolution should be passed unanimously. In this connection perhaps it will not be amiss-I do not know that I violate any rule of etiquette of this house-if I pay a tribute to the minister under whom these expenditures are now made and to the good work which I know personally he has performed in his department. Recently I sat on two boards appointed under the Industrial Disputes Investigation and Conciliation and Labour Acts, and I had a good deal to do with bringing about the appointment of another board just shortly before this house assembled. I have seen the minister in action, and I can report to his fellow members the vigour, intelligence, enterprise and, may I add, the success with which he has carried on his work.
In addition, another reason why we should pass this resolution is that the figures issued by his department are fairly satisfactory. Of course nothing could be absolutely satisfactory in the alleviation of distress; probably we should not have any distress; but putting all that aside, they are fairly satisfactory as figures go. I notice this, that the grand total of direct relief recipients has decreased since March of last year, 1939, from 1,027,000 to
708,000	persons. That is a considerable reduction and one which could be reported, I think, with a great deal of pleasure. It means that as many as 259,000 people have gone off the relief rolls of the Dominion of Canada in one month as compared with the other. Only two provinces in the whole dominion do not show improvement in this regard, namely, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. It is difficult, of course, to give explanations of matters of this sort, but I think one could explain it to the province of Quebec by saying that highway construction is not nearly as active in that province this year as it was last year in view of the recent provincial elections. They had an estimated 10,000 men working on the roads of the province of Quebec last year, but there are a great many fewer working there to-day. These people who were working on the roads will number, with their dependants, some 40,000 or 50,000, and that explains, I think, why it is that the decrease in the numbers of those on relief to be found in all the other provinces is not rMr. Roebuck.]
observed equally in the province of Quebec. So far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, the relief rolls there have been kept up, I understand, by the difficult conditions through which the fishing industry is passing.


Mr. HANSELL:: What about New Brunswick?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I believe New Brunswick has reduced its numbers on relief; that is what the report says.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no registration of direct welfare. The towns and cities are having to assume the whole responsibility. This government gives the province a grant and the province does not pass any of it on. We have to handle the relief work ourselves.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Perhaps some of the
reductions may be explained by the remark made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) two or three days ago when he referred to the Bourbons who had struck these poor people off relief. I hope that does not very generally apply, but I honour him for the plain speaking with which he described their actions.
Not only have the relief rolls decreased during this last year, but more encouraging still perhaps is the decrease in the unemployed wage-earners, the unemployed employables as reported by the bureau of statistics. Hon. gentlemen, whether they sat in this house at the time or not, will no doubt have a vivid recollection of the conditions which prevailed in this dominion in 1933, when as many as
730,000	employable men and women walked the streets looking for jobs when no jobs were to be found. That was a terrible condition to afflict any nation, and I observe with some little satisfaction that these figures have been decreasing, not nearly as rapidly as I should like or as hon. members would prefer, but nevertheless decreasing from time to time in the years that have intervened. In 1933 the number of unemployed employables was 703,000;	in 1934,	598,000;	in 1935,	589,000;in 1936,	568,000;	in 1937,	519,000;	in 1938,456,000;	in 1939,	a slight	increase	and the
only increase, to 494,000; and this year which has just closed, 1940, 391,000. So that there has been a good deal of decrease in the years since 1933.
I observe also that not only has the number of unemployed employables decreased, but those on relief have greatly decreased in numbers. In 1937, the first year for which the figures of this classification are available, the number was 245,000; in 1938, 168,000; in 1939, 186,000; and in 1940, 172,000. I suppose that everybody will join with me in an expression
6S5


194U
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Roebuck
of hope that these numbers will go on decreasing at greater speed in the future than in the past.
But here is a question which we should ask ourselves, and which probably the country would like us to answer. With a war in progress, with 100,000 men, roughly speaking, taken out of the labour market and put into battle dress, and with thousands of dollars being spent in our munitions plants, with war contracts being given out, I noticed to-day, at the rate of two and a half contracts to the minute of every hour of the working day, why is it that we have any men at all left on relief? I am not going into the philosophy of why we have unemployment, speaking generally, because I am dealing with this matter only superficially perhaps at the moment, but there are some reasons, in my judgment, which explain why we had 391,000 unemployed employables in April, 1940. To begin with, there are no actual figures available of the enlistments of those upon relief. Figures are not available showing how many of those who enlisted came off relief, but I am under the impression-and I am assured by those who seem to know something about the matter-that the numbers are not large. There are many reasons why men enlist, but it seems to me that the outstanding motive, the motive which actuates nearly all of them, is a desire to take part in the service of one's country. I suggest that it is most unfair to insinuate that our men who enlisted did so because they were on starvation wages or starvation allowances. I heard that suggestion made in this chamber not so very long ago. I regard it as a libel on our men. I do not believe that it accounts for the enlistment of any appreciable proportion of them. I repeat, as a reason why these relief rolls have not decreased, the fact-I believe it is a fact-that very few among those who enlisted were on relief. There are reasons for that. A sojourn on a narrow margin of relief is not designed to fit a man for the intense physical examination through which a recruit must pass when he comes to a recruiting office. He does not stand very much chance in a competition of this kind against men whose diet during the previous months has been better than his. Nor is the class on relief particularly suitable as a source of recruits. Most of them are labourers or men engaged in construction. In the nature of things there will not be found as large a proportion of skilled men forced to draw relief as will be found among the labouring, unskilled classes. In consequence, of course, these latter are not nearly so acceptable to the recruiting officers.
Another thought which crosses my mind is this. During several months before recruiting commenced, many factories all over Canada were working half time; but as war orders have increased and as factories have speeded up, while they have taken on some additional men, the number so taken on are by no means proportioned to the increased activity of the factories. In too many instances, instead of increasing their staffs, they are working overtime with the same staff greatly speeded up. So there is very much more additional employment than there are additional employees. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact.
Let us not forget the other side of this ledger. On the one hand is a certain amount of activitiy brought about by war orders, but on the other hand a certain amount of industry has been destroyed because of the war. A consideration of one column only will not give one a correct picture. For instance -and perhaps this is an outstanding point-let us consider the dislocation of our foreign trade as a result of the declaration of war. I have before me a statement compiled by the external trade branch, dominion bureau of statistics, for the four months ended April,
1939,	and the corresponding period of 1940, and I observe that in the four months ended April, 1939, we sold to Germany alone $2,987,000 worth of merchandise. It is unnecessary for me to give the figures of
1940.	That trade was completely destroyed as a result of the declaration of war. I note here also the trade figures with regard to Poland and Danzig. In the same four months of 1939 they absorbed $735,000 worth of our merchandise. Not one dollar's worth has been sold to them this year. These are but illustrations of the dislocation of trade brought about by the war.
But there are other conditions to be considered. For instance, there is the position of the building and construction industry. It is true that the expenditure of public money upon war orders has increased the activity of our building trades; buildings have been erected for war purposes and for those purposes only. But while there has been an acceleration in that direction, one must realize that a good deal of normal building activity has disappeared as a result of the War. Not all building, it is true; but one can fancy a person contemplating building himself a house and holding his hand under the doubtful conditions which now confront the communities of this country. So when one looks at the figures one finds the building industry is running along this year at just about the
6S6	COMMONS
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Roebuck
same pace as it did the year before. That is to say, the increase in the number of buildings on account of war orders has been offset by the absence of other types of building in consequence of war conditions. The same thing applies to public works. There are public works which have been brought about by war conditions, but on the other hand various public works have been stopped for the same reason.
All this offers some explanation, at least, why, with these large expenditures of money upon war efforts, there are yet some people on relief. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this phenomenon is not peculiar to Canada. I listened a short time ago to the present Prime Minister of Great Britain speaking over the radio, and I heard him deplore the fact that there were at that time in England 1,300,00 people out of work, one-half of whom were employable. Can one imagine a nation at war and fighting for its life, as Great Britain, along with the rest of the empire, is doing, realizing that wars are won in factories quite as much as on the field of battle, yet having one-half of 1,300,000 unemployed men in enforced idleness! We democracies have still a good deal to learn in the arts of self-government and with regard to those tendencies which bring about stagnation on the one hand and industrial activity on the other. But may we not hope that in the coming months, with the increased expenditures, with the activity which war always produces, and with changes in economic conditions which I do not propose to describe, we may find the entire employable population of our country absorbed either into the army or into the factories of our dominion? I hope so.
May I close with another thought. So far, I have been talking about the past. I should like to say something about the future. I notice in the Sirois report some criticism of the federal jurisdiction for its supposed lack of leadership in the post-war period. This is not politics. The report was referring to all parties and it explained the growth in the importance and the dominance of provincial jurisdictions. There may be some truth in that statement, the lack of leadership in the federal jurisdiction during this post-war period. But while that may be so, I submit that it does not apply to the Department of Labour, because in that department there has been perhaps a more progressive, forward-looking administration than in any other department in the twenty years following the war. My hon. friend opposite says something. Evidently he does not agree. Well, the Department of

Labour has been sufficiently progressive. I do not think any fault can be found with that word because I look for progress. That was what I was leading up to.
I should like to see this resolution carried unanimously because I wish to strengthen the hand of the Minister of Labour in those plans which I hope he has in mind and which would make for social betterment in our country during the coming years. I have in mind for instance the subject of unemployment insurance; I have in mind the idea of minimum wages and maximum hours within the dominion, matters full of difficulty it is true, but matters with which this house should wrestle in order to establish, as President Roosevelt has said, a floor under wages and a ceiling over hours.
No one can be as familiar as I am with industrial conditions in this country and not regret the pitiably low wages which in many instances disgrace our civilization. I hope that the future years, if not the future months, will see something done in this regard. Someone passes me word that my time is up. I wonder if I may have one more minute to finish two or three sentences.
The CHAIRMAN:: By unanimous consent
of the committee.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: This parliament passed an act giving the right to organize. It was in the form of an amendment to the criminal code and was passed at the session before last. It has not been adopted by the province of Ontario, and I hope that the ministry of labour will find some method of making that law applicable to Ontario irrespective of those who now oppose it. There is great work ahead of the ministry of labour and I should like to see this resolution passed unanimously in order to strengthen the hand of the minister in carrying on social work which is in his charge and perhaps in meeting some of the obstructions that are in his path from other jurisdictions.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I will try to be brief because I believe that in this house men are not listened to merely because they say much. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Roebuck) has given us something well worth listening to and reading and I congratulate him. He made some reference to relief recipients who did not enlist. I know there is some heartburning in the town of Trenton because some of our young men who left Fort William were twitted for having signed up because they were on relief. Let me say that these young men are equal to the cream of any country

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Maclnnis
in the world, and I know them well. Those young men who have given up fine positions and good salaries and have left their homes find that their rents have been increased beyond any conception, and I think the department should look into increases in rent being charged young soldiers in that town. However, that is not what I intended to say when I rose.
I know that our hearts are very tender. As the hon. member said, this is a war parliament, and we all know that some splendid memorials have been demolished. When we think of our loved ones who have gone on, we all feel that we would like to do something to honour their memory, to make their names live for the good of this land of our birth or of our adoption. When I think of the times I interviewed the late minister on the question of youth training, and the courtesy and patience he showed on every occasion, always willing to listen and to take suggestions, I am convinced that we should erect a war memorial and call it the youth training movement of Canada. I am convinced that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) will never lose sight of that youth training. It is the most constructive thing I have seen in my forty-four years in this great country. Some of the youth have said to us, "Do not let it die." And by God's help it will never die. I am convinced that the. present minister will make that memorial to his predecessor in such a way that youth training will be taken up with greater determination and Christian charity than it has ever been taken up before. When men have laid down their tasks others must take them up, and we will not depend upon one man to do the work of others. We will do our best, hoping that we shall be spared a long time and keep our youth training alive so that we shall see that this youth training programme is made a splendid success.
I am convinced that if the youth training movement dies, it will be a curse to Canada. Personally I am prepared to join with anyone in making it live; for if it had not been for unemployment and relief, and relief camps I would never have bowed my head to the finest constituency in this great part of our dominion, but being here I will do my best to see that every last employable person in Canada shall have an opportunity of sweating up to his job and keeping a cosy corner for his little wife and family.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: When the committee was discussing this resolution last Friday I was speaking at six o'clock and did not have time to finish what I wanted to say. Before coming to the
points I wish to discuss to-night, I should like to thank the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) for the kind reference he made to the members of this group. I presume the group to my left will thank him also because I think they were included. His remarks reminded me of a statement made by another great Liberal who has passed to his reward these many years. Shortly before his death Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone made this statement:
I painfully reflect that in almost every political conflict of the last fifty years the leisured classes, the educated classes, the wealthy classes have been in the wrong. The common people-the toilers, the men of uncommon sense-these have been responsible for nearly all tbe social reform measures which the world accepts to-day.
I agree that we have been and still are ploughing an unpopular furrow, if that is not mixing my metaphors too much. The policies we have been and are advocating are not greatly to the liking of many. The logic of events, however, will compel people to adopt them, as was the case during the fifty year period of which Mr. Gladstone spoke. I would suggest to the hon. member, however, that he be not too friendly, because he might get himself disliked; but possibly he is accustomed to getting himself disliked.
When I was speaking last Friday I referred to the refusal of many Canadian industries to recognize and negotiate with the accredited organizations or trade unions of their employees. I made particular reference to Canadian Celanese Limited, who not only refused to recognize the organization of their employees but evidently were proud of the fact, because they advertised their eighteenth century concept of social behaviour in the public press. I also mentioned that while sometimes we have reason to complain-as I shall to-night-of conditions in my own province, the attitude of the government and of some industrialists has progressed beyond the attitude to which I referred. Indeed, attempts are being made to get employers to recognize their responsibility for industrial peace and social progress. I have before me a copy of an address delivered before the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Manufacturers association by the provincial minister of labour, Hon. George S. Pearson, in which I find this paragraph:
The policy which has prevailed for such a long time, that the workmen must accept the conditions laid down by the individual employer or get out, must change. Industry is as dependent upon labour as it is upon capital and management. Industry cannot operate without labour. This being the case, labour is entitled to be considered as an integral part of the
688	COMMONS
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Maclnnis
industrial operation, and as such should be placed in the position by all employers of having the right to sit around the table with its employers and discuss its problems.
I for one appreciate that attitude on the part of the minister of labour of British Columbia. I hope he will do everything in his power and that in this he will have the assistance of the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), as I believe he will, to have that principle accepted in all industries, because I am satisfied that it is the first step to industrial peace and social progress.
I wish now to refer to a situation in my own province which I think is of particular importance at this time. When war broke out, I was of opinion, as I still am, that this country should organize production on the highest scale possible, and in that way make our greatest contribution to the struggle that is at present going on in Europe. And when I speak of production I do not refer only to aeroplanes, tanks and other war supplies; I refer to food and clothing as well. Under present conditions there is no danger that we shall have too much food in Canada. We should produce food in abundance, to supply the needs of our own people and our allies. There should be no reason why the unemployed in this country or the people of the allied countries should have to go on short rations. In war time, food rationing by the warring nations is understandable; but for the last ten years in Canada hundreds of thousands of our unemployed and low paid workers have been on very short rations indeed, and to me that is not understandable.
I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a letter I received a few days ago from the secretary of the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Union of British Columbia. I believe other hon. members from British Columbia have received copies of this letter as well. I wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour in this way in order that he may use whatever means he considers expedient to help bring about a solution of the problem. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
We are addressing this letter to you and some of your colleagues, feeling sure that you will give us your support. Knowling full well, the importance of food production in war time, we are asking you to aid us in avoiding anything that will curtail production at this critical time.
The salmon fishing season on this coast is just about to commence and except for one category of salmon, the cannery operators have refused to make known to the fishermen any of the prices they intend to pay. For this reason the negotiations are at a standstill.
For bluebacks, the one fish on which they have named a price, they offered 25 per cent less than last year. When the 30 per cent

increase in the cost of gear and the rise in cost of living is taken into account, the impossibility of operating a fish boat is evident. The blueback season commences on June 1st, and by the time you receive this some time may have already been lost unless the offer is raised.
If this 25 per cent cut indicates what we may expect for other fish then the situation is bad indeed, and we ask your aid to bring about a settlement before the main season starts.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have been trying to follow my hon. friend, and I wonder if there is a basis of relationship as employer and employee that would give the Minister of Labour any jurisdiction whatever? I ask that because frankly I am naturally interested in it. I do not see exactly what I can do as Minister of Labour unless that relationship exists.


Angus MacInnis: I have just about finished reading this letter, and then I shall read briefly from another one which will give the situation in that regard. I continue reading:
We feel that if the fishermen are willing to fish for last year's prices despite the rise in the cost of gear, and so on, canuers should be willing to forego something, especially at a time like this, when labour hours are so essential to the successful prosecution of the war. The eanners do not look with favour on our suggestions of arbitration, or government control of industry, but we think that if industry must close because private effort cannot cope with war conditions, then our government should intervene to make operation possible.
That is signed by the secretary, A. V. Hill, and is dated May 31. Since that date I have received another letter which I shall not read, but the contents of which I shall summarize briefly. At first the provincial minister of fisheries told the members of the union that legislation providing for arbitration was available when they desired it. But since that time he has informed them that the arbitration law now on the statute books applies only to fish caught with nets. I understand that these are troller fishermen, and that the arbitration legislation does not apply to them.
I may be told that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, and that there is nothing that this government can do. But in a great many matters to-day, in these abnormal times, Canada is being governed not by the normal dominion-provincial relations. In many respects the War Measures Act has displaced the British North America Act as the constitution of Canada. Here then is a condition where an important industry in British Columbia, an industry producing one of our most important foods, is being held up. I would suggest that anything the government can do, any pressure it can bring to bear, should be applied. I believe it has some influence, even if it be only moral suasion, that it could use to get these people

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Maclnnis
working, so that the people of the province and of the Dominion of Canada and our allies may benefit.
It seems intolerable that in these times either employers or workers should hold up essential production by refusing to arbitrate their differences, even if there is no legislation providing for arbitration. As a matter of fact, arbitration does not depend upon legislation ; it depends upon the willingness of the people concerned to come together and to agree to arbitrate any differences they may have.
On many occasions in this house, and again to-night by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), mention has been made of the inadequacy of relief standards. There are available very few figures or statistics on the amount required by an average family to maintain health and self-respect. On a number of occasions attempts have been made to obtain such figures, but they have not been worked out on a scale large enough to be of great value. Quite recently the welfare council of Toronto worked out a cost of living basis of the kind I have in mind. After considerable investigation, their conclusion was that it required S28.35 a week to cover the bare essentials for the maintenance of health and self-respect of a family of five, consisting of two adults and three children with an age range between six and twelve years. In the charts furnished we find complete figures for the various articles and services concerned, and I would suggest that any hon. member interested in the matter would find it worth while to study the figures.
I have been unable to find in the whole range one instance that I would consider not only not too high, but really high enough. The committee which prepared the figures stated that the food would have to be planned, purchased and cooked with the greatest possible care. Amounts set aside for cultural advancement and recreation are very small indeed. No allowance is made for what has now become general among men and women, namely tobacco, nor is there any provision for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. No allowance is made for telephones.
I do not know of any province which has a relief scale approaching the figure of $28.35 a week. Not only is our relief scale far below that amount, but in many instances wages in Canada fall below it. The Canada Year Book for 1939 shows for the year 1936, the latest year for which complete figures are available, that the average annual income of workers throughout manufacturing industries in Canada amounted to $896. I would
suggest that an effort be made to work out a budget that would give a decent living, and that as nearly as possible we should provide relief recipients with payments approximating the sum arrived at.
Beginning my observations on the resolution last Friday, I said I was going to stress two points, namely, the need for economic planning and the necessity for social justice in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Again I stress those two points. In doing so, I think I can not do better than read a brief paragraph from an article by Major Clement Attlee, former leader of the British Labour party and now a member of Mr. Winston Churchill's government. This excerpt is from an article written by Mr. Attlee shortly after the outbreak of war. He said:
The labour party, then, in taking its stand against Hitlerism, is defending civilization against barbarism. It is seeking to preserve the heritage of the past and the hopes of the future. For many centuries the treasures of thought and art, and the beautiful things in the earth, have been mainly the preserve of the few. Now, when the rise of labour has seen the doors opening to the workers, we will not *allow them to be closed by the domination of barbarism. We are resolved to defend our freedom and democracy against all attacks, whether from without or within. We value the political, religious, and personal liberty which our forefathers won for us. They can only be maintained by basing them on social justice. Without social justice there can be no real peace. It is the denial of social justice in the countries of Europe which has been one of the chief causes of the present condition of things.
I agree with Mr. Attlee. We won the last war, but it availed us nothing because we did not use the military victory to promote social justice. The peace was used for entirely different things; it was used to preserve class interest and class privilege. Under the circumstances the results are natural. The same thing will happen after this war if we do not use the military victory, which I hope will be ours, for just ends. A military victory is not an end in itself. At the most it can be only a means to an end. That end must be social justice. Only a system based on social justice will end unemployment and bring security and freedom to all. We should not wait until the end of the war before we begin to build social justice in Canada.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Chairman, the last few days have made everything not directly connected with our immediate task fade into insignificance, and yet I feel that hon. members would wish me to use this first opportunity of addressing this committee to make one acknowledgment. I want to say how deeply I appreciate the honour of representing the
690	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Claxton
Montreal constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George. The responsibility is a heavy one. It will be recalled that this division has been represented by such men as Sir George Etienne Cartier, D'Arcy McGee, Senator Ballantyne, the late Sir Herbert Marler and the Hon. Mr. Cahan. I feel that hon. members on this side of the house will unite with me when I endeavour to pay tribute on behalf of my constituency, of this house and of the country to the services rendered to his country by Mr. Cahan. Those services extended over the almost unparalleled number of fifty years. Now he is enjoying a rest from immediate public service, one which has been as well earned as it was unsought.
At this time I do not feel that I should take up the time of the committee in discussing many of the matters which might be discussed under this resolution. I am sure we all feel that we should devote our time and strength to the one cause we have at heart, the getting on with the war. In the few minutes which I propose to take, I intend to deal with one aspect of the unemployment question. Yesterday I had an opportunity of discussing with some men in Montreal a situation which might arise if it became necessary for our industrial plants to work at full capacity. They told me that in a short space of time there might well be a shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. At the same time there is in Montreal any number of unemployed single young men between the ages of sixteen and thirty. I join with hon. members who have spoken already, particularly the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), in drawing to the attention of the minister a matter which no doubt he has under consideration.
Everything possible should be done at this time to train young unemployed men in the use of machines, the reading of blue-prints and other work which would be necessary to fit themselves to take their places in our factories. I am told that a three months' course is all that is necessary. Our factories want young men from the technical schools. The industrialists of Montreal are well satisfied with the work which the technical school in that city is doing, and I am sure the same thing applies to other schools throughout the country. Upon inquiry it was found that the technical school in Montreal is filled to capacity. This year it will be able to qualify only some hundred men to take their places in industiy, whereas the needs of Montreal might well run into the thousands.
There must be some new means of training the unemployed youth of the country. We

are all familiar with the splendid work that has been done under the youth training plan, but the results in Montreal were not substantial. Some 9,000 young people between the ages of sixteen and thirty were eligible in 1938, but only 853 seemed to show any interest in the plan. In 1939 there was a registration of 6,654 young people, but because of lack of cooperation on the part of the provincial government nothing was done that year. To-day there are undoubtedly some five or six thousand young people in Montreal who would be eligible for training under this plan.
There are four ways in which this training could be given. The first is through the technical schools. While the Montreal technical school is filled to capacity at the present time, it might be that ways and means could be provided for keeping this school open during the summer months in order to prepare young men more speedily. The second method is industry itself. The hon. member for Davenport and others have referred to the possibilities of cooperation between industry and the government. The third means has not been referred to as yet. Why could not the universities of Canada be made available for this purpose? They have fully equipped shops and draughting rooms. I believe without exception they have placed their resources at the services of the country, and it seems to me that the minister and the universities could easily work out a plan whereby these young people could be given the training required to fit them for active work in the factories. The fourth means of providing this training, one which will no doubt receive the consideration of the government, is the development of special training schools in which people could be brought to the required degree of skill and knowledge necessary to take their places in industry. At this time, Mr. Chairman, everyone in this country is prepared to play his full part. So far there has been no slacking. There is no shortage of recruits, no shortage of labour. But from now on we may have to use every possible means to utilize the great fund of good-will, the earnest desire to be of service, in every possible direction, and I suggest that there is available in these young people, through training, a great source of help for our industries and ultimately for our war effort.
We hear a good deal about victory being the whole thing, that nothing else matters but victory, but I suggest to this committee that everything matters to-day in order to bring about victory. The work that each one of us does in every possible direction added together will make the great effort of the nation and

Unemployment Relief-Mr. White
bring about the result we all desire. We cannot all fight again on the front line, but there are front lines in Canada to be fought on, lines in the mines, the factories, the workshops and every branch of our activities throughout the country, and I suggest that the men and women of Canada are as willing to fight at home as our soldiers are to fight abroad.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak only briefly on this resolution. I regret that the Minister of Labour (Mr MoLarty) has not yet outlined in any detail the principles underlying or the manner in which he will carry out the spending of the moneys to be appropriated under this resolution or indicated the works to be carried out by his department to provide employment. During the debate on this resolution last week, several hon. members from the western provinces gave to the house details of the distress in agricultural districts in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, details which must have shocked many hon. members; but I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that these conditions are not peculiar to western Canada but apply also to certain areas in Ontario. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) in his speech to-night made mention of the distress that prevailed in his riding in Toronto. I should like to urge the Minister of Labour, in considering the plans of his department for the spending of moneys under this resolution, not to overlook the distress that prevails in many of the rural sections of Ontario.
The riding which I have the honour to represent, Hastings-Peterborough, consists of twenty-seven rural townships. Of these twenty-seven townships nineteen are unsuited for farming or agricultural pursuits except in small isolated areas. This is due to the large number of ranges of hills, large rock formations and poor type of soil. These townships, like all the rest of Ontario, were once covered with very fine forests. These have practically disappeared, and at the present time there is very little timber left for the settlers. The settlers in these townships are practically 100 per cent of British descent. They are not the type of citizen that wants relief. All they ask for is work. They desire the development of the natural resources within the counties of Hastings and Peterborough, and if these resources are developed they will create work for everyone. There are large mining areas to be developed. A great reforestation scheme could be undertaken, and if the tourist industry is developed it will provide work for many people. The conditions that apply to these two counties of Hastings and Peterborough apply to many other rural
sections of Ontario, but I shall deal with these two counties in particular because I am more familiar with their conditions.
In discussing roads I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the building of roads in Ontario comes within the jurisdiction of the province and of the individual counties. But I think it will also be realized that in many of these rural areas the building of roads is one way in which money can be spent to provide employment and relief. In the county of Hastings, for example, which is one of the largest counties in Ontario, there are some 282 miles of county roads, administered and kept up by the county. During the present year the county will spend on these roads the sum of $75,000, being the amount approved by the provincial department of highways. To show you, Mr. Chairman, the large amount of money that is spent by a county for road maintenance, the road from Madoc to Belleville, a distance of twenty-five miles, is paved throughout except for some ten miles, and the yearly, maintenance of this unpaved ten miles of road is $7,000, which does not take into account the cost of snow removal. Naturally the counties are anxious to pave their roads, but in the county of Hastings we are able to pave only one and a half miles of road a year. On the paved portion of the road there is no annual maintenance charge except for the cutting of weeds.
I would urge upon the Minister of Labour that when his department considers the spending of moneys granted under this resolution, he keep in mind the counties of Ontario, and in particular the counties of Hastings and Peterborough, with their hundreds of miles of roads which cannot be properly developed at the present time because of lack of funds. I suggest to the minister that the road conditions in these two counties will serve as an example of tne great advantage to be derived from a plan being worked out between the federal Department of Labour, the province of Ontario and the different county councils for the development of main county roads. Such a plan would create much employment, open new mining areas, and do much to aid the tourist traffic, which in turn would benefit hundreds of settlers in these two counties.
The municipal councils of these townships are unable to pay out much in the way of relief. When one considers that some townships have a total assessment of less than $60,000, one can readily understand why some municipal councils can do little in the way of relief. Taxes in all these municipalities are very high, and within the last few years

Unemployment Relief-Mr. White
several writs have been issued by the county against certain townships for arrears of county rates. Indigent accounts for the county of Hastings amount to between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, and each year there are thousands of dollars of unpaid taxes and many properties are sold for tax arrears.
Certainly there is very little, if any, opportunity for the young man or woman, and little prospect for the future. These nineteen townships in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough constitute a solid block which present a wonderful opportunity for a reforestation scheme, yet to date no such plan has been announced. The land is ideal for the planting of trees, because there is plenty of moisture, but to-day we find that the top-soil is being rapidly carried away. During the last three weeks there were very heavy rains throughout this district, and the lakes, creeks and rivers were at flood stage; in fact the water was higher than after a spring break-up. The reason for this is that the forests have been removed and the greater part of the rainfall is not absorbed into the ground.
These two counties of Hastings and Peterborough, with their hundreds of lakes and rivers, present endless possibilities for the development of the tourist trade. But to attract these tourists we need development of the roads, because the tourist of to-day demands a road to his camping place. Running through the county of Hastings is the only through road east of the city of Toronto leading from the No. 2 highway to Algonquin park or to Callander. This road is the shortest route to the park or Callander for all tourists entering Canada by Ivy Lea bridge. Here is a great opportunity to open up this section to United States tourists, because there is in this county some of the finest scenery in the world. It is a county where every kind of fish is found in large quantities and where game is abundant. The opening of proper roads for tourists would do much to relieve the distress of hundreds of settlers; it would do much to increase the provincial revenues, and it would bring great benefits to the many people engaged in trade in these two counties. At the present time this main road is partly provincial highway, partly a county road, and partly a township road. Until the road is completed and is shown on the tourist maps marked in red as a highway, few tourists can be expected to be attracted to this area.
In the southern part of these two counties will be found one of the finest agricultural districts in Ontario. To-day the farmer in this district is at a loss to know what the

government wishes him to produce. The farmer has no plan to guide him in production. Many of the farmers in these two counties have recently increased the number of hogs being raised, only to find that the price is lower than in normal times. Surely in a time of war it is one of the duties of the government to show some leadership in such a vital industry as agriculture.
The farmer, like every other citizen, is ready and willing to do his part in producing the required foodstuffs required in time of war, but he needs some plan or guidance as to the nature of the foodstuffs required. What encouragement to-day is it to the farmer to increase his production of hogs only to find that the government is permitting the entry of millions of pounds of pork from the United States? It is hardly necessary to repeat in this chamber that agriculture is the back-bone of the country and that until this industry is put on a proper basis, there will be distress and unemployment among the agricultural workers.
Enlistments to date in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough have been very large, and there are many more eager and willing to enlist if they are given an opportunity. But even these enlistments have by no means taken care of the hundreds of unemployed. If this government would at once have a national registration of every man and woman in the Dominion of Canada, it could then have a plan or basis whereby every man and woman would be given an opportunity of performing the war work best suited to his or her qualifications. To-day, when the allies need in unlimited quantities every kind of munitions and other supplies, there are roaming about the country looking for work hundreds of men qualified to work in munition factories and other trades which could make war supplies. I ask the government, why not put these men to work in producing supplies? If this is done, a large part of the unemployed problem will be solved. Why continue spending huge sums each year to alleviate unemployment and provide relief when there is a great need of speeding up the manufacture of war supplies; for I think we are all agreed that the combined efforts of every man and woman in Canada will be needed in our undertaking to carry through our part in this world struggle?	.
Since it is necessary to make provision for unemployment and agricultural distress, I should like to make a few suggestions to the committee and to the Minister of Labour:
First, that the government undertake at once a national registration of every man and woman in the Dominion of Canada.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hansell
Second, that the Minister of Labour give serious consideration to a plan of flood control and a reforestation scheme in this area of nineteen townships in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough.
Third, that the Minister of Labour consider the great possibilities offered by the counties of Hastings and Peterborough for the development of tourist traffic from the United States by opening up roads, and in particular, by the completion of the road through Hastings county leading to Algonquin park.
Fourth, that the Minister of Labour consider the question of special grants for improving and opening roads to mining properties now being developed in these two counties.


Ernest George Hansell: I rise particularly to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) a question, which I believe is extremely fundamental, in respect to the resolution we have before us relating to unemployment and relief. I desire to comment a little for the purpose of elucidating that question.
In days gone by, we heard many speeches in this chamber on unemployment and relief. Even during this session of parliament there have been many speeches on the same subject. The other night I attempted to give one hon. member a bit of a dressing down because he endeavoured to criticize severely the group with which I am associated. This evening, however, I should like to compliment and to thank another hon. member-I refer to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck)-for the kind remarks he made concerning the progressive groups which sit in this quarter of the house. I can assure him that such comments are not often heard here, and, coming as they do, they are particularly refreshing. I believe that if there existed in this chamber a more kindly disposition towards the progressive groups in this corner, we might make further headway with our discussions; we might get a little closer together.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to several of the speeches on this resolution. Hon. members have risen to call for an enunciation of the policy of the government on the problem of unemployment. The government has been charged with a lack of plan, and some speakers have passionately demanded that it should do something. Well, we have been urging the government for a good many years to do something, and such a resolution as we are debating at this time comes up for discussion every session; it would seem to be the best that the government has to offer the country. I have been wondering why such a motion should have to be debated in this
chamber at this particular time. There might have been some reason for such a resolution, say five years ago, after the government had been elected in 1935. They were feeling their feet and perhaps contemplating some type of action, and such a resolution would have served in those days. But after five years, nearly six years, of administration, it does seem to me that the government should have something a little better than this to offer the people of Canada.
I remember that in the election compaign of 1935, nearly six years ago, I referred to an article written by the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and published in Maclean's magazine of September 15, 1935. Of course, even in those days, we had this serious unemployment problem. The Liberals who were stumping in those days were going to deal with this unemployment problem; the whole country desired to know how they were going to deal with it, and I am going to read from this article. It was not a speech but an article written after a good deal of contemplation, meditation and thought, and it appeared over the pen of the present Prime Minister. It was entitled "The Issues as I See Them." I am inclined to think that Maclean's magazine publishes a similar article with the same title prior to every election; at any rate this is the one that appeared prior to the 1935 election. This is what the leader of the Liberal party said at that time:
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
This employment commission was created and it did its work, but its work fell far short of what that statement purported it was going to do. As far as I am concerned the employment commission was little more than a committee for the tabulating of statistics throughout the country on matters of relief and unemployment. It did not deal with the situation; and if there was any merit in any of the recommendations the commission made, certainly we have not seen very good results from those recommendations.
I said I was wondering why such a resolution w'as on the order paper at this particular time. That the government has this resolution on the order paper is significant of the fact that the government expects unemployment to continue. Moreover, I suggest that the fact that the resolution appears every year shows that the government is not dealing with the
694	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hansell
matter in any adequate way. Such a resolution is self-evident of the fact that something is radically wrong in Canada. If a doctor has a sick patient on his hands, he never attempts to prescribe without first diagnosing the case.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is, a good doctor.


Ernest George Hansell: Well1, a good doctor. I think it behooves us to ask, if we diagnose the case, just why it is that this problem exists. I would ask the Minister of Labour that question. A year or two ago the government might have answered, "Well, there is a depression on in the country and unemployment is a result of business conditions." I do not think we can very well say that to-day. Surely the government would not say at the present time, when the British empire has its back against the wall, that there is a business depression on. That could not be the reason why unemployment exists to-day. It could not be that parliament has not passed proper legislation. I am reminded of the impression that we were given some time ago, that under the War Measures Act the government had the power to pass pretty well whatever legislation it desired; and that being the case, after eight months of war, it does seem to me that we should not have any unemployment or relief problem.
Speaking of legislation and the power of the government under the War Measures Act, I wonder if I might read a short paragraph from this renowned document in these red covers. There appears at the top the statement, "This document is the property of His Majesty's government in Canada," and it is known as the Defence of Canada Regulations. This is, of course, as we all know, a report given by a sort of interdepartmental committee whose terms of reference required them to look into some phases of legislation and to come back to the government with a report as to just what measures should be enacted should a very serious condition arise in the country. Let me read from page 3, parargaph 4, War Measures Act:
Pursuant to our terms of reference we have surveyed the position as regards the legislation which would be required in the event of grave emergency and we have reached conclusion that little in the way of special legislation in parliament will be required. Under the provisions of the War Measures Act, chapter 206, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, the governor in council "may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may, by reason of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada." It is clear, therefore, that this statute confers upon the executive ample authority to take pretty

well whatever action might be found to be necessary to meet the exigencies of war or other emergency. There is, however, one specific exception to this general rule, namely, finance.
I should like to point out to hon. members that apparently the government could do about whatever it wanted under the War Measures Act, except that it must keep its hands off finance; no, it must not touch that.
Why does there exist in Canada to-day a condition that requires a resolution of this kind? I said a moment ago that it could not be because there is a business depression. I have just referred to this paragraph which would indicate that it cannot be because the government is unable to act. I am wondering if it could be because we have no raw materials in Canada. I hardly think that could be given as a reason for unemployment. I am wondering if perhaps the reason might be that we have no factories in Canada. I do not think that is a good reason; I believe we have ample factories to meet the needs of unemployment in these days. Can it be that we have no genius or engineering skill in Canada? I do not think that could be given as a reason. Perhaps it is because we have no money. Of course we in this comer of the house have a certain money philosophy. I am not going to refer to that to-night, but it has been said over and over again of late that since the war began we have plenty of money. This parliament is going to be asked to vote in the neighbourhood of one and a half billion dollars. Therefore even under orthodox finance I do not think the reason for unemployment could be that we have no money.
So what to-day is the fundamental reason for so much unemployment in Canada? That is my question to the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that to diagnose the case properly he should be able to give to the house and to the people of Canada the reason why unemployment exists in this country today. I am not going to tell the minister how to answer the question; I believe he is quite capable of putting into words whatever may be in his mind on the subject. But I would ask him not to answer by saying that there is unemployment in Canada because people cannot get any work. That does not answer the question. We want to know the fundamental, root cause of unemployment in Canada to-day. If we know the cause, perhaps we can remove it. If the minister wishes to take a little time to think over the matter, that is all right with me; but I hope that before this debate concludes, the minister will give an honest answer to this question: Just what is the cause of unemployment in Canada to-day?

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hatfield


Mr. H. H. HATFIELD (Victoria-Carleton):: I do not desire to oppose the resolution, but rather I wish to speak of the way in which relief is carried on in New Brunswick. At page 5 of the report of the commissioner of unemployment relief I find this statement:
At the request of the province of New Brunswick, which has adopted a policy of not granting material aid generally but rather to require those in need of assistance to perform some form of work, an agreement was entered into with that province by which the dominion agreed to contribute fifty per cent of expenditures incurred by the province during the period April 1, 1939, to March 31, 1940, inclusive, in carrying on certain provincial undertakings.
This request might have been made in good faith, but it was not so carried out. Instead of requiring those in need of work to perform some service, it was quite impossible for those in need of work to secure jobs on certain road contracts for which this money was used. Almost twenty per cent of the labour used on the roads was brought in from outside the province by road contractors from Montreal and other cities. I know of a great many people in my constituency who were urgently in need of work in order to earn enough money to feed their families 'but who were refused the opportunity.
According to this report it would seem that there was no unemployment and that there were no people on relief in New Brunswick. From what I have seen of the other provinces, however, and what I know of New Brunswick, I consider that my province has problems in respect to relief more serious than those of any other province in Canada. A great many of the municipalities have become bankrupt through carrying this tremendous load of relief. They have not been able to collect taxes from the agricultural counties because agricultural products have been selling for less than the cost of production. According to this report the government of New Brunswick received S549.960.10 from the federal government in lieu of relief for the year ended March 31, 1940. Very little of this money came into my constituency, and our municipal council had to carry the burden of relief, social services and hospitalization through direct taxation on our people.
The same arrangement was made in 1938 with the provincial government of New Brunswick, but of the money contributed by the federal government practically all that came into my constituency was paid to a bank under a guarantee in connection with a lumbering operation. This lumber firm went a good many thousand dollars in the hole, and money was taken out of the relief
fund to make up that amount to the bank. But the people working on this particular lumbering operation did not receive their wages; neither did the farmers who supplied hay, oats, beef, pork and other products to this lumbering operation receive their pay. That is a sample of how relief has been carried on in New Brunswick. The bank got the relief. In 1939 stumpage was paid the New Brunswick department of lands and mines from relief money provided by this government, amounting to $20,770.20. The bank of Nova Scotia was paid a certain amount towards the cost of unloading from cars pulpwood en route to Germany. The New Brunswick telephone company was paid a certain sum towards the cost of removing telephone poles from the highways. A discount on debentures issued by the provincial government, totalling $28,638, was paid out of this fund, together with expenses in connection with debentures to the amount of $2,136.
It is not relief legislation that is needed at the present time to help agriculture and unemployment. Rather it is a measure to employ every employable man in our factories in the manufacture of tanks, planes, motorized equipment and ammunition for our allied armies. We want to put our workers in a position where they can purchase food, clothing and farm produce. In that way we would give our farmers a chance to exist, and they would be in a position to spend money in Canada.
In a time of war every person should be at work. We have a great opportunity to reestablish our farmers on the land and to give them a profit over their costs of production. For the past ten years our farmers have been feeding the people at less than cost of production. They are the largest employers of labour, when they are given something more than the cost of production. But we know that in the last few years they have only existed on the land and have not been in a position to employ outside help. Some of them have had to keep their children out of school to help on the farms. They have not been able to give employment to the unemployed, and to the people on relief in their own communities.
I say:	Give the farmers a chance and
there will be no more unemployment relief in Canada. I am absolutely opposed to turning over moneys voted by parliament to any provincial government to use in their own political ways. I consider the municipal councils in Canada the only public bodies which would distribute fairly to all concerned
696	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hatfield
any available relief moneys. Municipal councils are the only independent legislative bodies in our dominion to-day.
Before closing, I should like to submit to the committee a suggestion which I believe would be highly beneficial to agriculture. One reason why the farmers are in such unfortunate circumstances to-day is that many of them have lost their credit, and cannot secure further credit from the banks or other financial institutions. I do not believe in extending long-term credits to the farmer, but I do believe in seasonable loans. And when I say that, I mean the farmer should be financed to buy his seed, fertilizer and other necessities, and should be financed during the crop year at a low rate of interest, such loans being repayable after the disposal of the crop.
I suggest two classes of short-term loans. One would be a cooperative farm loan such as is being used in the United States. There are joint recipients. The members of a farm organization are liable as joint guarantors for an amount equal to their own borrowings. This led to a careful selection of members. A farmer was accepted as a borrower only if, in the opinion of the society officers, he was a man of integrity and a good farmer.
Members were required to take stock in proportion to their borrowings. Profits and losses were accordingly shared. Each borrower was financially interested in every loan. This plan could become operative among a better class of cooperative farmers who might find themselves unable to borrow from the banks, jven for seasonable crops.
Then, there is another class of farmer who has grown farm produce at less than cost of production, and to-day he finds his credit completely ruined. These are known as relief farmers. I do not believe a farmer should be kept on relief; he should be placed in a position whereby he can carry on without it. I am suggesting the setting up of another form of loan for this class of farmer. In the United States such loans are under the supervision of their emergency farm loan board. Applications are made to the board for small loans to amounts not in excess of $300, and these moneys are used in connection with the handling of smaller crops during the crop season. The board is permitted to make further loans to buy machinery and live stock which in the opinion of the board is necessary, and for such services a chattel mortgage is taken.
If these two faim credit organizations are set up, I would consider that the legislation now before the committee would be unnecessary. The two measures I have suggested

would relieve agriculture, and the factories engaged in the manufacturing of war supplies would take care of the balance of the unemployed. I would impress upon the government that every effort should be made to have all possible war materials manufactured in Canada so that our money may be kept at home. Otherwise it will be impossible to secure by taxation the large sums of money required to carry on our war effort.
Before taking my seat I would call to the attention of the committee the document issued by the farm loan board to any farmer wishing to borrow money. In my opinion this indenture which the farmer must sign is a vicious document. If a farmer is behind on his payments he becomes a tenant and brings himself within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Any goods on his property can be seized and sold, without notice. He also waives all right of exemption afforded him under the provincial statutes. One paragraph reads as follows:
And the mortgagor hereby waives the benefit of all statutes relating to exemptions from seizure and distress, now or hereafter in force in the said province.
This form of mortgage on both real estate and personal property has ruined the credit of the borrower. He cannot get credit to-day. Under those circumstances how can we expect him to carry on, meet his payments and repay the principal sum?
Clauses of that kind should be removed from the farm loan mortgage. The Canadian farm loan board was set up to help keep the farmer on the farm, not to ruin his credit. I repeat the suggestion to those in authority that clauses such as the one I have read should be taken out of farm loan agreements.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Mr. Chairman-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if the hon. member would excuse me. I think the committee will agree we have made excellent progress to-night, and as I understand there are two departments to go into supply I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. STIRLING:: Before the motion is put, Mr. Chairman, I raise this point of order: May I draw attention to the fact that since eight o'clock the discussion has been out of order. This afternoon the house was in committee debating a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister. He reported progress, and made a statement when his honour was in the chair. At eight o'clock we jumped the order of " orders of the day " appearing at page 5 of the order paper, and in some way or another we have found

Munitions and Supply
ourselves proceeding with order No. 6, the resolution dealing with the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. It appears to me that if the debate this evening is to be regularized, some definite action to put it right will have to be taken.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was not in the house at eight o'clock.


Norman Alexander McLarty: My hon. friend will
remember that the Prime Minister announced that we would go on with this order to-night.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: But the orders of the day were not called.


Grote Stirling: Neither the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour nor I can change the order of the orders of the day. The orders of the day were not called. Therefore, strictly speaking, the discussion since eight o'clock has been out of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was about to observe that I was not in the house at eight o'clock. I did not arrive until a few minutes after that time. I was not aware that the orders of the day had not been called until my hon. friend drew attention to the fact. I do not think there is any question about the point of order, and it is well that my hon. friend has raised it. In my mind there is no doubt as to the propriety or the legality, if I may use a lawyer's term, of our proceeding in the manner suggested. I take it that there will be no objection to that procedure. My hon. friend has certainly done the right thing to draw the attention of the committee to this because we should certainly proceed properly and in order.


Grote Stirling: Then do I understand
that when Mr. Speaker is again in the chair, the orders of the day will be called?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That could be done.


Thomas Vien: I was not here at
eight o'clock, but I am told that at that time the Speaker was in the chair and called order No. 6. He then left the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole. In my opinion that, procedure was regular. At six o'clock progress had been reported from the committee of the whole and there was then a motion for the adjournment of the debate.


Grote Stirling: I defer to your expressed opinion, but I would point out that when progress was reported on the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister we then reached a certain point on the order paper. If we were to follow the order paper, the next order would have been the next resolution, which stands in the name of the Prime Minister. Then there is a resolution
standing in the name of the Postmaster General and another one in the name of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. We would then have arrived in the ordinary course at the orders of the day.


Thomas Vien: I think the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. Does he insist on his point of order for the time being? It has been moved that the committee should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. In my opinion the point of order should have been raised before the motion to report progress had been made. In any event I think the point is a technical one, and perhaps the hon. member will not insist on it after he has brought it to the attention of the committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe the raising of
the point of order at the present time is in itself out of order.


Grote Stirling: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The point raised by my hon. friend should have been raised when the Speaker was in the chair and not when the house is in committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: Do we understand that if progress is reported, orders of the day will be called?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, we can call the orders of the day.
Progress reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Following the point raised by the hon. gentleman and in order to regularize the proceedings, with the unanimous consent of the house, the house will now revert to orders of the day.