1942-02-23

NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz.:
Of Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, for the electoral district of Welland.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, member for the electoral district of Welland, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. C. W. G. Gibson.

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

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What decision has the government reached
regarding the recognition of our present ally the U.S.S.R.?	.	.
2.	If recognition has been decided upon, will the government exchange representatives with the Soviet Union?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Answered by a special statement of Prime Minister in House of Commons, February 5, 1942.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How much steel was used in the construction of the new Canadian National Railway station project in the city of Montreal during the years 1940 and 1941?
2.	How many man-hours of skilled labour were used on this project during the years 1940 and 1941?
3.	What has been the cost of this project to date?
4.	What is the estimated cost of continuing this work for 1942?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	1940, 1,903 tons; 1941, 1,614 tons.
2.	Information not available as most of the work was performed under contract.
3.	As required by the Canadian National Montreal Terminals Act, 1929, the railway authorities report to the Minister of Transport annually upon the nature and extent of the work on the said project. This report is tabled each session, and is expected shortly. It will contain the information called for by Questions 3 and 4.
4.	See answer to question 3.


PORT ARTHUR TERMINAL ELEVATOR
Mr. PERLEY:: *
1.	What amount of rental was paid to the government by McCabe Brothers Grain Company, Limited, for the rental of the government's terminal grain elevator at Port Arthur, during the years, 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	What amount of storage fees were paid to the said McCabe Bros. Grain Company, Limited, for grain stored in the said elevator during the years, 1939, 1940 and 1941, and by whom was this amount paid?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Crop year	Rent

August 1, 1938 to July 31, 1939.. 66,876.37 August 1, 1939 to July 31, 1940.. 72,230.98 August 1, 1940 to July 31, 1941.. 67,900.25
2.	No information.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What cost of living bonus is being paid to employees in city post offices?
2.	Is this bonus limited to 5 per cent on postage commission in the case of revenue postmasters? If so, for what reason?
3.	Why was payment deferred until the 1st of October, 1941?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Eleven per cent of compensation earned, or $11.91 per month, according to conditions as outlined in the Order in Council of the 26th August, 1941, P.C. 6702, as amended and interpreted by the Treasury Board.
2.	Yes. Revenue postmasters are not paid a fixed salary as in the case of employees of city post offices. Instead they receive a commission, the amount of which increases in ratio to the amount of postal business transacted at their post offices. Under present day conditions there has been a general increase in postal business throughout the country, which has resulted in increased commissions to revenue postmasters.
3.	The decision to grant revenue postmasters a cost of living bonus was not reached until some time in September, 1941, and the bonus was, therefore, made effective from the next month, 1st October, 1941.


LEASE OF REGINA BUILDING
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Has the government acquired a leasehold or any other interest in the whole or any part of a building situated on Eleventh avenue, Regina, being lots 1, 2 and 3 in block 308?
2.	If so, from whom was such interest acquired ?
3.	What were the terms of payment for such interest?
Questions

4.	What amount, if any, has been or is to be spent by the government to make the building suitable for its purposes? .
5.	What was the assessed value of the said building and lot?
6.	What valuation was placed on the building by the government officials, (a) before; (b) after the completion of the building?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	David Silverman, Esq.
3.	72-84 cents per net square foot per annum for duration of war, plus six months with annual option to the crown of renewal at same rate thereafter.
4.	Necessary partitioning, etc. for office accommodation will be installed by the government and removed by the government at conclusion of the lease.
5.	Lot-$32,800; building-816,930 (at 30% valuation).
6.	New building not appraised for value by government officials. Such appraisal unnecessary for government purposes, but building appraised by city appraisal department for taxation purposes at $56,433.33.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-GRAPE FRUIT JUICE
Mr. LOCKHART:: What amount of foreign exchange will be required in connection with the importation of grape fruit juice in the year 1942?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The answer to this question would involve an attempt to forecast the future and no such forecast can be made with any degree of accuracy.


*AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What air raid precaution equipment has been provided the province of Nova Scotia since January 1, 1940?
2.	Have any complaints been received from the
province of Nova Scotia or the city of Halifax, concerning (a) lack of A.R.P. equipment; (b) style, type, usefulness or uselessness of equipment received ?	,
3.	What further equipment, if any. will be sent to Nova Scotia within the next two or three months?
4.	Has a report been received from the province of Nova Scotia concerning the disposition of equipment?
5.	If so, to what centres was equipment sent, and what quantity to each?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question orally. The reply to questions 2 and 4 is no. It is not in the public interest to make public answers to the other questions, but I should be very glad to give the information privately to the hon. member or to any other hon. member of the house.
[Mr. Perley.)


QUEBEC CITY AIRMAIL SERVICE
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that there is a private air service between the cities of Quebec and Montreal?
2.	Is the Postmaster General aware that there is no airmail service in the city of Quebec?
3.	If so, will the minister establish an airmail service in Quebec city?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Matter under consideration.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BONUS PLAN
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Is the dollar for dollar bonus for returned soldiers operating under the soldier settlement board still being paid?
2.	If not, when was it discontinued and for what reason?
3.	What consideration, if any, has the government given to the reestablishment of this bonus plan during the year 1942, and future years?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No.
2.	March 31,	1941, in accordance with
amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act- 2 George VI, Chapter 14, 1938, Subsection (1) of Section 73.
3.	It has not been considered necessary to re-establish the "dollar for dollar" bonus provisions of the Act.


PUBLIC SERVICE-BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What was the total number of employees in the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue on May 15, 1941. (a) who speak one language only; (b) bilingual?
2.	What was the total number of employees in the head office of the income tax division, on May 15, 1941, who (a) speak one language and are in receipt of less than $3,000 per annum; (b) bilingual and in receipt of less than $3,000 per annum; (c) speak one language and in receipt of $3,000 or more per annum; (d) bilingual and in receipt of $3,000 or more per annum?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) 1,359; (b) 511.
2.	(a) 176; (b) 40; (c) 31; (d) 5.


Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What are the names of the bilingual members of the following boards, (a) board of referees; (b) war contracts depreciation board; (c) succession duties?
2.	What is the total number of employees employed in the head offices of such boards from September 1, 1939, to date, specifying, (a) those speaking one language only; (b) those who are bilingual?

Questions


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) The Honourable Mr. Justice W. H. Harrison.
(b)	Nil.
(c)	There is no board for administration of succession duties. This is dealt with by the Income Tax officials in general along with their other duties.
2.	(a) (a) 15; (b) 4.
(b)	(a) 6; (b) 1.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-BONUSES TO MANUFACTURERS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has any bonus been granted to the manufacturers of leather by the Wartime Prices and Trade Board?
2.	Has the Wartime Prices and Trade Board granted a bonus to the manufacturer of any other commodity?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, subsidies have been authorized for milk, leather footwear and coal.


IMPORTS OF TAPIOCA STARCH
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What was the amount of tapioca starch imported into Canada during each month of the year 1941?
2.	What was the value of such tapioca starch imported during each of these months?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1 and 2. No information. Tapioca starch not separately classified for statistical purposes.


WOOL IMPORTS AND PRODUCTION
Mr. HATFIELD:: In view of wool imports from Australia being cut off, what is being done to stimulate the raising of sheep for wool production in Canada?


Mr. GARDINER:: Some replacement of
fine wool imported from Australia is made through fine wools produced in western Canada and some expansion has taken place in its production.
Ewes and rams have been' imported from the United States by the Dominion Department of Agriculture and breeding flocks for flock improvement purposes have been established.
Wool grading has been introduced to improve the quality of wool generally and make it more suitable for Canadian requirements.


TURNIP, CARROT AND ONION SEEDS
Heber Harold Hatfield: Is any inducement being offered the farmers of Canada to raise more turnip, carrot and onion seeds, the import of which may be curtailed due to the Avar?


James Garfield Gardiner: In cooperation with provincial departments of agriculture, arrangements have been made Avith respect to the growing of turnip seed under contracts.
Our requirements of onion and carrot seeds are largely produced in Canada and any shortage in particular A'arieties has been met by obtaining supplies from the United States to meet 1942 requirements.


NITRATE OF SODA
Heber Harold Hatfield: What provision has been made to secure a supply of nitrate of soda for use in Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: Canada's requirements of
nitrate of soda for 1942 have been provided for. Negotiations are now under way for an adequate supply for 1943 and no difficulty in this regard is anticipated.



AGREEMENTS UNDER WAR EXCHANGE . CONSERVATION ACT

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many agreements have been concluded between his majesty and individuals or corporations pursuant to Part III of the War Exchange Conservation Act?
2.	What is the estimated total value of the increase in Canadian exports AA'hich will result from such agreements?
3.	What is the estimated present and future loss in revenue to the federal treasury due to the special credits and/or special allowances for depreciation or depletion AA'hich will result from such agreements?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	29.
2.	827,793,000 (United States) annually when the additional facilities provided in the above agreements are in full operation.
3.	These agreements have been drawn up in such a manner that the total tax revenues of the Dominion Government will not be less than they would have been in the absence of such agreements. The general principle followed has been that tax assistance given under these agreements should not be more than the additional profits resulting from the expansion programmes so that in general the taxes payable by these companies on their original operations are not reduced by the effect of the agreements. There is distinct probability that total tax revenues will be increased because of these agreements.



SYDNEY AND LOUISBURG RAILWAY COMPANY

Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Is a subsidy paid the Sydney and Louisburg Raihvay Company?
2.	If so, for what reason and on what basis?
Questions

3.	What amount, if any, was paid by way of subsidy to the said railway company for the years 1940 and 1941?
4.	What were the earnings for the years 1940 and 1941 of the said company?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Maritime Freight Rates Act, 1927, provides for a reduction of 20 per cent in ordinary tariff rates on railways operating in the Maritime area, the said Eastern lines to be reimbursed by the Dominion Government for the revenues thus denied them.
3.	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1940- $192,457.19; Fiscal year ended March 31, 1941-$295,609.64.
4.	Dominion Bureau of Statistics advise that this company reported earnings in 1940 (calendar year) as follows:
Gross revenues	$1,719,695
Operating expenses (including
taxes)	 1,127,805
Gross corporate income .. ..	591,890
Deduct non-operating expense 483,926
Net corporate income .. .. $ 107,964
The operating figures for 1941 are not available as yet.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY SERVICE

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	On what date was the car ferry Cliarlotte-toicn sunk?
2.	Was she insured for the voyage during which she sank?
3.	If so, has the insurance been paid?
4.	If so, what is the total amount of the insurance paid?
5.	Was payment made to the government or to the Canadian National Railways?
6.	Have any attempts been made to salvage the vessel?
. 7. If so, what is the nature of such attempts?
8.	If not, why not and what consideration has been given to attempting her salvage?
9.	Did the Minister of Munitions and Supply recently express confidence that it is possible to salvage this vessel?
10.	If so, was this confidence based upon reports made to him by officers of the Department of Transport and/or the Canadian National Railways?
11.	When was the car ferry Prince Edward Island built?
12.	When was she first placed in service between Borden and Cape Tormentine?
13.	When was she retired from regular use on such service?
14.	Before her retirement from such service were reports made by officials of the Department of Railways and Canals and/or the Canadian National Railways to the effect that she was inadequate for this service?
'Mr. Gillis.l
15. What is the tonnage of the car ferry Prince Edicard Island?
16. What is the tonnage of the car ferry Charlottetown?
17.	Has any consideration been given to the building of a new car ferry to replace the Charlottetoicn?
18.	If so, what decision, if any, has been reached?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	June 18, 1941.	.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	$995,000.
5.	Payment was made to Canadian National Railways in the first instance and then turned over to the Dominion Government, less an amount of $11,193.92 to reimburse the railway for capital expenditures on said vessel.
6.	No.
7.	See answer to question No. 6.
8.	The following is an extract from the report of the Underwriter's Surveyer:
' "The undersigned conferred with officials of the Canadian National Railways, also Maritime Towing & Salvage, Ltd., Halifax, and Messrs. Merritt, Chapman & Scott Corporation, New York, on the possibilities of salvage of the Charlottetown. The Salvage companies, after careful 'Consideration of the vessel's location, and with 'the plans of the vessel at their disposal, consider the salvaging of the Charlottetown not practical. It is, therefore, recommended that no expense be incurred by attempting examination or salvage of the vessel."
This report was concurred in >by Foundation Maritime Limited.
9.	Not recently. Immediately following the loss of the vessel, hope .was expressed generally that salvage would be possible. That hope was dispelled by the subsequent reports of the Underwriters' Surveyor, and Foundation Maritime Limited.
10.	See answer to No. 9.
11.	1915.
12.	1917.
13.	1931.
14.	The report of the royal commission on Maritime Claims (Duncan Report), dated September 23, 1926, page 27, reads as follows:-
"The present car ferry affords a much improved service as compared with that which the island formerly enjoyed, but in recent years traffic and freight have considerably increased, and will continue to increase, particularly at certain seasons of the year. When the present ferry steamer was constructed, it was not contemplated that there would be motor car traffic to be taken care of, and the arrangements at the piers are, from

Questions
the point of view of this traffic, very unsatisfactory. There have been many complaints by visitors and tourists. During the winter there are frequent calls made upon the present ferry steamer, by reason of other craft getting into difficulties and the steamer requiring to proceed to their aid; and at times when the ferry steamer is undergoing overhaul, the boat taking its place is unsuited for the purpose. Altogether the ferry boat service is unsatisfactory. The railway administration admitted that there was need for supplemental provision being made in the form either of a second ferry boat or a special freight boat. We recommend that the matter be gone into from the point of view of placing at the disposal of the island such satisfactory means of communication as will ensure as regular and complete a service as can reasonably be made".
15.	2795 gross tons-1100 net tons.
16.	5889 gross tons-3385 net tons.
17.	Matter receiving consideration. The time occupied in the construction of the Charlottetown was fifteen months and the cost
82,320,000.	To replace the lost vessel would entail the use of 3300 long tons of urgent!}' required ship steel (including machinery); would occupy almost one million man-hours of labour and, under prevailing conditions, the cost of such a vessel would be increased from 65 per cent to 75 per cent. The diversion of so much steel and labour from wartime industry is a matter requiring most careful consideration at a time so critical as the present.
18.	See answer to Question 17.
coastal motor boats


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many coastal motor boats have been ordered ?
2.	How many were completed by October 31, 1941?
3.	What was the total cost?
4.	How many of these boats reached Halifax before the close of navigation?
5.	How many of these boats are now in commission?
6.	In what state of completion are the balance of the boats?
7.	At what points are any boats, which did not reach Halifax before the close of navigation, tied up?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I think this question should be dropped.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not know anything about the question, and as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is not here, perhaps the minister would allow the question to stand.


Georges Parent: Stand.



PENNFIELD RIDGE, N.B., AIRPORT

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Have any difficulties been found because of sea fogs and bad weather, in using the airport at Pennfield Ridge, New Brunswick?
2.	Has it been found possible to use this airport for the training of pilots, or, have these had to be transported elsewhere for training?
3.	On whose recommendation was this site chosen?
4.	What is the total cost of building and equipping this airport?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No difficulties have been found because of sea fogs and bad weather with respect to the use of the airport itself. The school originally allocated to this aerodrome was an air navigation school for the purpose of advanced training of air observers but the cloud layers in the surrounding district have been such as to make stellar sights and solar sights necessary for the teaching of air navigation difficult.
For this reason and reasons of economy it has been decided to amalgamate two air navigation schools in one, leaving the Pennfield Ridge site free to be used for the training of pilots in operations.
2.	No pilot training has hitherto been attempted for the reasons mentioned in No. 1, but no difficulties are foreseen in the proposed change.
3.	The Department of Transport and Aerodrome Development Committee recommended the siting of this school.
4.	The following table shows the total cost of building and equipping this airport:
Construction of buildings, including heating contracts $1,152,650 56
Services (water, sewers, roads, parade ground, fencing, etc.)	 209,351 30
Railway siding	 21,416 00
Total



$1,383,417 86 NORTH TORONTO BIBLE HOUSE-MAIL SERVICE

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department restricted or cut off the mail service to and from the North Toronto Bible House, 2721 Yonge street, Toronto?
2.	If so, when was such order made?
3.	What procedure was followed by the post office authorities in arriving at the decision to prohibit such service?
4.	Was an investigation taken before doing so?
5.	If so, was evidence taken at such investigation, and what persons gave evidence?
6.	If no evidence was taken, were representations received requesting that such order be made, and what are the names of those who made such or any representations?
Questions


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 15, 1941.
3.	The attention of the department having been directed to the fact that the Canadian mails were being used for the distribution of printed literature advertising certain books, the literature in question was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who ruled that it was published for an illegal purpose within the meaning of the Canadian Postal Regulations, and that the posting of such literature was forbidden by the postal regulations. As a result of this ruling, the department, acting in accordance with the procedure followed by all administrations, withdrew Canadian mailing facilities from the Protestant Book House of Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A., and The North Toronto Bible House, Toronto, Ontario, the names of which organizations appeared on the literature as distributors.
4.	In view of the ruling of the Deputy Minister of Justice, an investigation was not considered necessary, but, as a result of protests received from the proprietor of The North Toronto Bible House, the circumstances of the case were fully explained to him and he was informed that if he would furnish an assurance that he would not in future use the Canadian mails for the distribution of the literature declared illegal by the Deputy Minister of Justice, the prohibitory order against the North Toronto Bible House would be cancelled. Although the proprietor of the above organization has been afforded more than one opportunity of furnishing the department with such an assurance, he refuses to do so. In view of this refusal and the ruling of the Department of Justice that the literature in question is illegal, the department has no option but to maintain the prohibitory order in effect until such time as the assurance asked for is furnished.
5.	See answer to number 4.
6.	See answer to number 3.



ERECTION OF BUILDINGS FOR OTHER THAN WAR INDUSTRY

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many licences have been granted for the erection of buildings other than those required for war industry since construction control has been adopted?
2.	How many buildings have been erected pursuant to the issue of such licences?
3.	What is value and location of each such building?
4.	What is the total amount and value of the steel that went into such buildings?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	There have been issued up to February 5, 1942, a total of 3,150 licences for the erection
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
of buildings. Records covering these do not differentiate between war and non-war industries. A clear line of demarcation is not possible.
2.	The department has no knowledge of how many buildings which have been licensed have not been erected.
3.	The controller of construction has not the necessary staff to compile the extensive data requested re the 3,150 licences granted.
4.	Information re the amount and value of steel used in the buildings which have been licensed is not asked for on the application for licence forms, and except in isolated cases is not available.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many orders in council have been passed, (a) since the outbreak of war; (b) while parliament has been in actual session during the said period; (c) since the beginning of the present session on January 22, 1942?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (a)	20,677 orders in council and 11,645 treasury board minutes from September 1, 1939 to February 6, 1942, both dates inclusive.
(b)	5,470 orders in council and 3,161 treasury board minutes while parliament was actually in session since September 1, 1939.
(c)	412 orders in council and 166 treasury board minutes since the beginning of the present session on January 22, 1942.



STRIKES IN CANADA

John George Diefenbaker: How many strikes have taken place in Canada and what is the number of man-hours that have been lost in consequence during each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Number of	Time loss
	strikes and	in man
	lockouts in	working
	existence	days
1939....	
122	224.5881940....	
16S	266.3181941....	
211*	430,812** Preliminary figures.	Strikes	and lockouts are	not recorded
separately. A dispute which is clearly a lockout is rare. The calculation of time loss is not carried to man-hours.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What amount was paid to farmers in each province, during the year 1941, under the wheat acreage reduction bonus?
2.	What has been the cost of administration of this bonus?

Questions
3.	What number of inspectors, supervisors and office staff have been employed in each province in connection with the administration of this bonus?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Manitoba, 82,931,908; Saskatchewan, 813,239,408; Alberta, 87,241,040.
2.	To December 31, 1941-8644,015.03
3.	Province Office Supervisors Inspectors
Staff
Manitoba	62	10	43Saskatchewan	133	16	307Alberta	91	14	96The above supervisors	and	inspectors also
carry out the field work under the Prairie
Farm Assistance Act.



CANADIAN ARMY-BADGES FOR DISCHARGED PERSONNEL

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government decided to issue a badge for discharged personnel?
2.	If so, what instructions have been issued by the department to give effect to same?
3.	Have such badges been issued or distributed to the various military districts?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Classification and regulations published in Canada Gazette dated December 13, 1941.
3.	No. The badges will be issued direct from National Defence 'headquarters.



PURCHASE OF CHEESE FOR EXPORT

Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What is the name and address of each firm granted permission to buy cheese for export during the year 1941?
2.	What is the name and address of each firm refused permission to buy cheese for export during the year 1941?
3.	Was any limit placed on the amount which these firms were allowed to purchase during 1941?
4.	Were all these firms in the cheese export business prior to 1941?
5.	How mueh cheese was exported by each of these firms during 1941?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The following firms were granted permission to export cheese to the British Ministry of Food, during the year 1941:
A. A. Ayer Company Ltd., 690 St. Paul street west, Montreal, Quebec; J. C. Edwards & Company, 701 St. Paul street, Montreal, Quebec; Cooperative Federee de Quebec, 130 St. Paul street east, Montreal; United Dairymen Limited, 748 St. Paul street west, Montreal, Quebec; Hodgson, Rowson & Company, 771 William street, Montreal, Quebec; Geo. Hodge & Son Limited, 166 King street,
Montreal, Quebec; Lovell & Christmas (Canada) Ltd., 160 King street, Montreal, Quebec; P. W. McLagan Limited, 417 St. Peter street, Montreal, Quebec; Olive & Dorion Limited, 722 St. Paul street west, Montreal Quebec; Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., Union Stock Yards, Toronto, Ontario; Canada Packers Limited, Union Stock Yards, Toronto, Ontario; W. S. Cook & Son, Belleville, Ontario; Ingersoll Cream Cheese Co. Ltd., Ingersoll, Ontario; Belleville Cheddar Cheese Ltd., Belleville, Ontario; Jas. A. Sanderson, Oxford Station, Ontario; Whyte Packing Company Ltd., Stratford, Ontario; Flavelles Limited, Lindsay, Ontario.
2.	Brantford Produce Co. Ltd., Brantford, Ontario, refused permission to export cheese to the British Ministry of Food during 1941. P. W. McLagan Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, was instructed to discontinue buying cheese on October 1, 1941. This instruction was rescinded with respect to cheese made after the 31st of October, 1941.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	This information is considered confidential.



FORTH-ULLIN, ALTA., RAILWAY LINE

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Has the board of transport commissioners for Canada handed down a decision regarding the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway to abandon the line of railway between Forth and Ullin in the province of Alberta?
2.	What was the nature of the decision?
3.	Has this decision been made public?
4.	If so. when and by what method was it made public?


Mr. CARDIN:: The board of transport commissioners advise that no decision has as yet been reached in the application referred to. Judgment is expected shortly.



POPULATION-ENGLISH AND FRENCH LANGUAGE

Mr. PARENT:: 1.	What is the English language population born in Canada?
2.	What is the English language population resident in Canada and born in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Ireland?
3.	What is the French language population resident in Canada and born in France?
4.	What is the population in Canada speaking French and born in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: Census of 1931
1.	British Isles racial origin born in Canada-
English	 1,920,259
Irish	 1,053,449
Scotch	 1,022,915
Other	 36,384
4,033,007
Questions

2.	British Isles racial origin born in-
England and Wales	 738,020
Ireland	 107,259
Scotland	 278,777
Lesser Isles	 4,814
1,128,870
3. French racial origin bora in
France	 15,361
4.	French mother tongue of
persons born in Canada 2,762,142
We do not have any figures showing the number of persons born in Canada who can speak French.



INCOME TAX RETURNS IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH

Mr. WARD:: What was the total number of income tax returns received in the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue for the calendar year 1940, (a) English, (b) French?


Mr. GIBSON:: (a)	English	
2,966,970(b)	French	
311,228Total	
3,278,198



DEPENDENTS' ALLOWANCE BOARD-RED DEER

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many district representatives and temporary employees have been engaged by the dependents' allowance board in the Red Deer federal constituency since September 1, 1939?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all such persons?
3.	When was each appointed?
4.	What rate of salary or wages and allowances are paid to each?
5.	What amounts have been paid to date to each such person?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4 and 5. See answer to question 1.



CHARTERED BANKS-REMUNERATION FOR FEDERAL SERVICES-INTEREST

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Do chartered Canadian banks receive remuneration for any of the following services:
(a)	acting as agents of the foreign exchange control board, (b) agents or representatives for the custodian of enemy property, in respect to enemy assets, (c) raising of funds by government for its ordinary needs and the prosecution of the war, (d) acting as agents for deliveries and finalization of subscriptions to governmental issues, (e) agents for the sale and distribution of war savings stamps and certificates?
2.	What rate of interest is charged the Canadian government on, (a) borrowed money,
(b)	overdrafts?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	(a) Yes. The Canadian chartered banks receive from the Foreign Exchange Control

Board a commission of one-eighth of one per cent on purchases and sales of foreign exchange completed by such banks in their capacity as authorized agents for the board, (b) No. (c) and (d) In the case of issues sold to the public prior to 1941, the chartered banks received the usual selling commission (usually three-quarters of one per cent on long term bond issues and one-quarter or three-eighths of one per cent on medium term issues) allowed by the government on all sales. In such issues the banks did not receive any other remuneration for the handling of applications from subscribers and for the delivery of bonds to purchasers. In the case of the 1941 Victory Loan the chartered banks did not receive any commission on sales negotiated by their offices but a service fee was paid for services rendered in connection with the reeciving and handling of applications to purchase bonds and in connection with the delivery of bonds to the purchasers (excluding bonds purchased by certain government departments or agencies) on the following basis: one-quarter of one per cent of the principal amount of all bonds delivered except bonds for which payment was made from deposit accounts on the books of trust and loan companies. The same service fee is being allowed in connection with the second victory loan, (e) No.
2.	(a) Particulars of interest paid by the Dominion of Canada on all borrowings will be found in the appendix to the public accounts of Canada entitled "Interest on Public Debt." (See pages 72-75 of the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1941.) (b) Since the commencement of operations of the Bank of Canada in March, 1935, the Dominion of Canada has not had an overdraft with any chartered bank. Particulars of interest paid on short-term ways and means advances by the Bank of Canada will be found in the appendix to the public accounts of Canada entitled "Interest on Public Debt." (See pages 72-75 of the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1941.)



BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Is Canada a member of the Bank of International Settlements?
2.	What transactions, if any, have taken place between the Bank of Canada and any other member of the Bank of International Settlements since the outDreak of war?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The Bank of Canada is not a member of the Bank for International Settlements.
2.	Transactions with other central banks which may be members of the Bank for International Settlements form a part of the

Questions
ordinary banking operations of the Bank of Canada and it is not considered in the public interest to disclose any information concerning such transactions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways distribute a booklet, Canada's Maritime Provinces, during the year 1941?
2.	If so, how and where was this book distributed?
3.	What was its total cost?
4.	Was it prepared by Canadian National Railway officials in Montreal?
5.	If not, who compiled the same?
6.	Was the work supervised and checked by railway officials before acceptance?
7.	If so, by whom?
8.	What firm, or firms printed this booklet, and at what cost?
9.	Were tenders called on this work?
10.	Who supplied the picture of the four-masted schooner on page 14, labelled, Maritime [DOT] Fishing Schooner?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Through passenger offices of Canadian National Railways in Canada and the United States.
3.	SI,489.72.
4.	Yes, in collaboration with departmental representatives in maritime provinces.
5.	See answer to question 4.
6.	Yes.
7.	Answered by question No. 4.
8.	Le Soleil Ltee. $1,069.78.
9.	Yes.
10.	Canadian National Railways' maritime province connections.



AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS-BLACK-OUT EQUIPMENT

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What equipment has been loaned or given to cities or to the provinces of central Canada, including Toronto, in connection with black-out?
2.	What is the date of the next black-out in Toronto, what time will it begin and of what duration will it be?
3.	Has any further direct home defence been afforded to municipalities since that set out in the return tabled last session, which sought by direct military aid from Canada to provide adequate local defence measures?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	It is not in the public interest to divulge information regarding quantities of equipment in any locality for air raid precautions.
2.	No information since the authority to order black-outs in Toronto has been delegated to the attorney-general of the province of Ontario, who must obtain the approval of the senior defence officer in the area.
3.	Question not understood.



*S0LDIER SETTLEMENT-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What is the number of soldier settlers who settled in Saskatchewan under the soldier settlement board?
2.	What was the total original indebtedness of these settlers to the soldier settlement board?
3.	How many of such original settlers are still on their land?
4.	What was the original indebtedness of the settlers who are still on the land?
5.	What are the total payments made by those who are still on the land?
6.	What is the present indebtedness of those who are still on the land?


Mr. CRERAR:: In regard to this question, there is a very great amount of work involved in preparing the answers to it in its present form. I suggest that the question be allowed to stand, and I would be glad if the hon. member who asked it would consult me about it, and perhaps we can reduce the amount of work required.


Georges Parent: Stands.



COAL SUBVENTIONS

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount paid in each province by the dominion government by way of subventions to assist in the movement of coal during each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	What quantity of coal was moved in each province under these subventions during each of the above years?
3.	To what companies, firms or individuals, and what amounts were paid under these subventions during each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. Subventions are not paid to the provinces but to the railways or to coal mine operators or distributors.
Subventions paid, calendar years as follows:
Province of origin of coal
1939	1940	1941
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick..
Alberta	
Saskatchewan. . . . British Columbia

Totals

766 Questions	COMMONS		
2. Quantity of coal moved, Province of origin of coal Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Alberta	calendar years as follows: 1939	1940 1,940.570 59,224 553,426 41.256 413,814	1941 2,015,829 43,783 sno qsiSaskatchewan	
British Columbia	
401,275	22,677 434,328
Totals (net tons)			3,008,290	3,318,968
3. It is not considered in the public interest to provide details of payments to individual companies, firms or individuals.



IMPORTS OF COAL

Mr. HANSELL:: What \vas the total tonnage of foreign coal imported into Canada during the years 1938 to 1941 inclusive, and from what countries?


James Angus MacKinnon: Imports by countries of coal entered for consumption in Canada during the calendar years 1938 and 1939, and total imports of coal during the calendar years 1940 and 1941.
1938	1939	1940	1941
Countries	Tons Tons Tons Tons
United Kingdom	
1,257,8S7	1,099,419	____ ..Belgium	
33,689	9,743	
..French East Indies	
69,900	46,855	____ ..Germany	
317,648	465,818	
..Japan	
417	....	....	..Morocco	
15,442	4,204	____ ..Netherlands	
21,185	15,230	
..Russia	
22,792	
....	..United States	
11,273,531	13,357,324	....	..Alaska	52	____ ..Total imports	
13,012,491 14,998,645 17,426,734 20,388,393
Countries for the years 1940 and 1941 not available.



AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS-BLACK-OUT REGULATIONS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was the opinion of the Department of Justice obtained as to legality of the penalties imposed for breaches of black-out regulations?
2.	What compensation is to be given in claims for damages to municipalities, or others, who sustain damage?
3.	Have methods and plans in connection with various black-outs to be sanctioned by the government of Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No information.
3.	No.



INTERNMENT OF ALIENS

Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	How many anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi internees sent from England still remain interned in Canada?
2.	Where are they interned?

3.	What are the reasons for their continued detention?
4.	Does the British government have to give its consent to their release?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No person sent from England to Canada for internment came to Canada under the classification of "anti-Fascist'' or "anti-Nazi". All civilians sent from England to Canada for internment were described as "civilian internees". Subsequent to the internment of the persons so sent, an official of the home office came to Canada and brought with him dossiers relating to individual cases. This official between November, 1940 and June 1941 investigated the cases of civilian internees and arranged for the return of some 700 of them to England. As a result of his investigations 1,542 of the remaining civilian internees were provisionally classified as refugees. On the 1st July, 1941, refugee camps were established under the supervision of a

Questions
commissioner of refugee camps. The administration of these camps is separate and apart from the administration of internment camps. The number presently in refugee camps is 1,179. Since the refugee camps were established some 166 have been returned to the United Kingdom, some 121 have been released in Canada, under sponsorship, to continue their education, and 35 have been released to engage in war industries.
2.	The refugee camps are located at Sherbrooke, P.Q., and Ile-aux-Noix, P.Q.
3.	Persons may only be released for residence in Canada under the Immigration Act and each case is considered on its merits.
4.	In respect of all cases of release, communication is had with the Government of the United Kingdom, in order to ascertain that there does not appear reason, disclosed in the records available in the United Kingdom to question the bona fides of the person recommended for release.



WARTIME HOUSING-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. REID:: 1.	How many houses have been constructed by Wartime Housing Limited in the province of British Columbia?
2.	At what place or places were these constructed?
3.	What has been the total cost of these houses, and the individual or average cost of each?
4.	What valuation for sale has been placed on these houses, and does the price asked include the ground?
5.	How many of these houses have been sold and on what terms?
6.	Under whose direction were these houses constructed, and what firm or firms built them?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	In process of construction-426.
2.	North Vancouver-200. Prince Rupert- 151. Esquimalt-75.
3.	These projects are not completed and the following figures are estimates only. They include all accessory services such as sewers, water, walks, roadways, etc.
North Vancouver-Total, $599,395; average per house, $2,996.97.
Prince Rupert-Total, $516,468.75; average per house, $3,443.12.
Esquimalt-Total, $250,055; average per house, $3,334.06.
4.	No valuation has been placed on the houses for sale.
5.	None. The 'houses are not for sale.
6.	Wartime Housing Limited, and the supervising architects for all projects are Messrs. McCarter & Nairne of Vancouver.
The houses are being built by: North Vancouver-Smith Bros. & Wilson of Vancouver; Prince Rupert-E. J. Ryan Construction Co. of Vancouver; Esquimalt-Bennet & White Construction Co. of Vancouver.



DISCONTINUANCE OF GOLD PRODUCTION

Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has the government negotiated with the governments of the United States and Great Britain with a view to discontinuing the production of gold for the duration of the war in order that men and materials now being used in gold production might be employed in other more essential industries?


Mr. McLARTY:: No.



CANADIAN CONSUL AT ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON

Mr. LECLERC:: Does Mr. C. C. Eberts, Canadian consul at St. Pierre-Miquelon, speak French?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-EMPLOYMENT OF E. SAMPSON

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Was Mr. E. Sampson, Tuberose, Saskatchewan, employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, or in any capacity at any time, during the year 1941?
2.	If so, how much salary, mileage and expenses was he paid in each or any of these employments?
3.	Did he receive a crop failure bonus for the year 1941 on the south J of section 4, township 23, range 15, west of the 3M., or any other property?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Mr. E. Sampson was employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from August 9th to December 31st, 1941, as an inspector.
2.	Salary, $444.92; mileage, $425.74; Expenses, $83.60.
3.	On the south i of section 4 and the southwest I of section 9, township 23, range 15, west of the 3M., he received:
Under Prairie Farm Assistance Act___$300
Under Prairie Farm Income	 150



$450 PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-EMPLOYMENT OF R. WHALEN

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Was Mr. R. Whalen, Kyle, Saskatchewan, employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, or in any capacity at any time, during the year 1941?
2.	If so, how much salary, mileage and expenses was he paid in each or any of these [DOT] employments?
Questions

3.	Did he receive a crop acreage bonus for the year 1941?
4.	If so, how much?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Mr. R. H. Whelan, not R. Whalen, was employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from April 17 to November 29, 1941, as an inspector.
2.	Salary, S477.74; mileage, 8414.90; expenses, $43.35.
3.	Yes.
4.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act.. 8196 50
Prairie Farm Income	 98 25
8294 75



DECENNIAL CENSUS-EMPLOYMENT OF E. SAMPSON

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Was Mr. E. Sampson, Tuberose, Saskatchewan, employed in taking the 1941 census?
2.	If so, what total amount did he receive for this service?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	8114.11.



GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. REID:: 1.	Was permission granted to the oil companies to raise the price of gasoline one cent per gallon in the province of British Columbia?
2.	If so, what reasons were given for this increase at the present time, and in view of the fact that they were granted an increase in 1941?
3.	Will part of this increase be passed on to the gas stations?
4.	Have any applications been made by the oil companies for any increase in price on gasoline in any of the other provinces?
5.	If not, what reasons were advanced by the oil companies for singling out British Columbia and compelling the people of that province to pay this further increase?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No permission has been granted to any oil company to raise the price of gasoline in the province of British Columbia since July 16, 1941. We have no information that the price has been raised. The increase of one cent per gallon of July 16, 1941, was common to every province in Canada.
2.	There has been no increase granted since 1941.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	No formal applications have been made in any of the other provinces for general increases in the price of gasoline since the price ceiling order of October 23, 1941.
5.	Inasmuch as there has been no increase, the people of the province of British Columbia have not been singled out; on the contrary,

there was an increase of one cent per gallon in October, 1941, in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, but this increase did not apply to British Columbia or the prairie provinces.



SASKATCHEWAN AIR FIELDS-WATER SUPPLY

['1.\tYes.\n2.\t(a) $2,880 per annum.\n(b)\tTo promote salvage organizations in communities where they do not exist, and to stimulate the conservation and collection of secondary material throughout the maritime provinces.\n(c)\tLast position-Manager of the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation and the Canada Permanent Trust Company.']
Mr. POWER:: I should like to answer this question verbally. This picture, "Captains of the Clouds", deals largely with the joint air training scheme. It is a picture on which Warner Brothers have spent over $1,900,000. The Royal Canadian Air Force sent to the premiere in New York a band and a number of men who gave an exhibition in New York, partly in order to assist at the ceremonies of the premiere, but partly by way of reciprocity for what the United States government did in sending some hundreds of American troops here on a visit of friendship. All expenses were defrayed by Warner Brothers, with the exception of transportation to New York, which amounted to $5,739.04.


Georges Parent: Answered.
Honorarium
Campbell, D. A	
Clendenning, F. H	 $150
Farnalls, Paul	 160
Hutchinson, Lew	 120
McCowan, J. A	 130
McKenzie, D. G	 30
Messier, R	
Pettypiece, Fred	 150
Reece, R. C	 50
Reid, A. C	
Wesson, J. H	 80

3 and 4. Matter of government policy, not



Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many meetings were held by the advisory committee to the Canadian wheat board from July 1, 1941, to date?
2.	Where were such meetings held and what subsistence allowances and travelling expenses were paid to each member attending these meetings?
3.	Has the advisory committee made any recommendations to the wheat board with respect to prices and marketing 1942 crop?
4.	If so, what are the said recommendations?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Meetings held from July 31 to date- August 27, 1941; December 8 and 9, 1941; January 12, 13, and 14, 1942.
2.	The August meeting was held in Calgary,
and the other two meetings were Winnipeg.		held in
Subsistence	Travelling	Total$140	$ 503 73	$ 643 73150	121 90	421 90160	169 20	489 20110	141 70	371 70130	99 16	359 1630	50 45	110 45150	354 35	654 3550 0030	90 30	120 3080	119 85	279 85$980 considered in	$1,650 64 the public interest.	$3,500 64


DECENNIAL CENSUS
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. HAZEN:
1.	How much money has the government spent to date in taking the census?
2.	How much money has the government spent to date in each province in taking the census?
Mr. MACKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The amount spent to January 31, 1942, on account of 1941 census is $2,130,215.
2.	No record of amount spent in each province.


STE, ANNE DE LA POCATIEKE, QUE., FISHERIES SCHOOL
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government received representa-' tions from the provincial government of Quebec,
through the Minister of Fisheries or any other person, recommending the withdrawal of federal grant from the fisheries school at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere?
2.	If so, on what date were such representations 'received and what action has the government taken thereon?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LANCASTER MILITARY HOSPITAL
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What were the names of all employees, including medical and clerical staff, of Lancaster hospital, West Saint John, from the year 1919 to the year 1941?
2.	What were their salaries per year and what were their pensions per year from 1919 to 1941?
3.	Were any of these employees supplied with
automobiles by the government? If so, how many and what are their names?	*
4.	What were the prices of these automobiles?
5.	What year were such automobiles purchased?
6.	What was the cost of operating these cars from the date of purchase to the year 1941?
7.	What year was Lancaster hospital opened as a military hospital?
8.	What was the total cost of the Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?

Questions

9. What was the cost of all repairs to Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret that it is not possible to answer this question for the period it covers. I should be glad to notify my hon. friend in regard to all information available in the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let it
stand. The hon. member who asked the question is not here to-day, but he will be present to-morrow. I will draw his attention to the matter.


Georges Parent: Stands.


NEW BRUNSWICK PENSION TRIBUNAL
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What are the names of all the employees of the pension tribunal which was formed in New Brunswick in 1930 and abolished in 1933?
2.	What were their expenses, including travelling expenses, from the time the tribunal was established until it was abolished?
3.	What compensation was paid to the members and employees of this tribunal when it was abolished in 1933?
4.	Who was the pension advocate and what were his educational qualifications and his previous experience?
5.	What previous pension experience had the members of the pension tribunal?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	No pension tribunal was formed in New Brunswick; the pension tribunal constituted under the authority of an act to amend the Pension Act, chapter 35 of the statutes of 1930, heard applications at convenient places throughout Canada.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Two pensions advocates of the veterans' bureau, appointed to prepare and present applications for pension appeared before the pension tribunal in New Brunswick between 1930 and 1933, namely:
(1)	Lt.-Col. George Alex. Gamblin, M.C.,
V.D. Educational qualifications:	public
school; business college; diploma in accounting-no previous pension experience
(2)	Major C. R. Mersereau. Educational
qualifications:	Chatham grammar school;
Chatham high school; Mount Allison University, one year Arts; King's College law school. B.C.L. (1922)-no previous pension experience.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-H.N.M. STANBURY
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is H. N. M. Stanbury in the employment of the Department of National War Services?

2.	If so, what is his salary, what are his duties and what was his former occupation?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $2,880 per annum.
(b)	To promote salvage organizations in communities where they do not exist, and to stimulate the conservation and collection of secondary material throughout the maritime provinces.
(c)	Last position-Manager of the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation and the Canada Permanent Trust Company.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-DOUGLAS LORIMER


Heber Harold Hatfield: What consideration, if any, has the government given to the exemption from the pulp-wood export embargo, of pulpwood cut by farmers on farm property?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is no embargo on the export of pulp-

Questions
wood cut by farmers on. farm property. The export of pulp wood is, however, under export control. Where farmers regularly exported in the past, they are allowed to continue to export normal quantities to /the United States.


SHIPMENTS OP CERTIFIED SEED POTATOES TO SOUTH AMERICA
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the Department of Agriculture prohibit the issuing of certificates of health on shipments of certified seed potatoes to any country in South America during the month of December, 1941?
2.	If so, for what reason?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1 and 2. The Department of Agriculture issued instructions to withhold certificates of health to cover the export of potatoes to Uruguay pending an investigation of arrangements with regard to shipping space.


WARTIME HOUSING-FOUNDATIONS AND CELLARS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Of what construction are the foundations of the houses built by Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	Are cellars provided in these houses?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The houses are built on posts-usually of concrete. Where the cost is too great, wood cedar posts are used.
2.	No.


PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who is the protecting power so far as Canadian prisoners of war in Germany and Italy are concerned, as successor to the United States of America?
2.	Has the United States been thanked for the splendid work they did in Germany, Italy and the occupied countries, in aid of British prisoners of war?
3.	What neutral countries are available for this work in the future, and what arrangements, if any, have been made by the government, through Great Britain or otherwise, with the governments of the enemy countries for looking after and safeguarding the interests of our prisoners of war?
4.	What power, in lieu of America, is now acting as our protecting power for the inspection of enemy war camps and repatriation of prisoners?
5.	What friendly country is at present the protecting power in the case of Japan and the Canadians there who are prisoners of war in the Pacific and Far East, and is there any inspection of Japanese internment camps by a protecting power?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. The protecting power for Canadian interests in Germany and Italy is Switzerland. The
responsibility of the Swiss authorities for the protection of Canadian interests in these countries includes the protection of all members of the Canadian forces taken prisoner by Germany and Italy.
2.	The Canadian minister at Washington has expressed to the department of state the gratitude of the Canadian government for services rendered by the United States as the protecting power for Canadian interests in Germany and Italy and in territories occupied by Germany and Italy.
3.	It is not possible to say what neutral countries might be available to serve as protecting powers for Canadian interests should further occasion arise. The Canadian government is and has been taking parallel action with the governments of the United Kingdom and of the other dominions for the protection of members of the Canadian forces taken prisoner by the enemy through the protecting powers for Canadian interests and through the International Red Cross Committee at Geneva. The specific arrangements made are those provided for by the International Prisoner of War Convention of 1929.
4.	As stated in reply to question 1 Switzerland has assumed the protection of Canadian interests in Germany and Italy and German and Italian occupied territories. This responsibility includes the inspection of prisoner of war camps where Canadians are held and making arrangements for the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners of war. Argentina as the protecting power for Canadian interests in Japan and Manchuria exercises a similar responsibility there.
5.	Argentina is the protecting power for Canadian interests in Japan and Manchuria. Switzerland is the protecting power for Canadian interests in occupied China. Up to the present, no reports have been received of inspections by representatives of the protecting power of internment camps in Japan and China where Canadians are detained.


CAR FERRY &quot;PRINCE EDWARD&quot;
Mr. McCULLOCH:: 1.	Are the boilers of the ice-breaking car ferry, Prince Edward, to be converted from coal burning to oil burners?
2.	If so, who authorized such change?
3.	What is the purpose?
4.	Is oil as economical as coal?
5.	Is oil as easily obtainable as coal in the section in which the car ferry operates?
Mr. CARDIN.
The Canadian National management have replied to this inquiry as follows:
1.	Yes.
Questions

2.	The Oil Controller on the recommendation of the railway management.
3.	To provide more reliable and efficient operation.
4.	Yes.
5.	No difficulty is being experienced.


REPRESENTATION OF CANADA ON INTER-ALLIED WAR BOARDS
Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Is the government taking measures to have representatives of Canada take seats upon all inter-empire and inter-allied boards, charged with responsibility for the strategic direction of the war and the production and allocation of munitions and war materials?
2.	If so, who will represent Canada upon
(a)	the Chiefs of Staff board in Washington,
(b)	the Munitions Assignment board in Washington, (c) the Pacific council in London?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	This is a matter for consideration with the governments of the other nations concerned. Many factors, such as scope, functions and responsibilities, must be taken into account
n each case.
Canadian interests in these matters are being given the closest attention.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


FEONTENAC CREAMERIES-COLD STORAGE
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	What financial support, if any, was given by the government to the Frontenae Creameries of Kingston for the purpose of cold storage?
2.	What financial guarantee was given by the Frontenac Creameries to the project?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Paid:	1940,	$2,100.83;	1941,	$980.39.
Amounts to be paid, 1942, $560.22; 1943, $280.11; 1944, $280.11.
2.	No information.


CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Of the 350 ships or rno'-j that comprised
the Canadian navy at the Beginning of this year, how many were:	fa) battleships, (b)
cruisers, (e) aircraft carriers, (d) submarines, (e) destroyers, (f) corvettes, (g) minesweepers, (h) patrol boats, (i) motor torpedo boats, (j) sloops, trawlers and other craft.
2.	What is the total tonnage of the Canadian navy ?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would ask my hon. friend to allow the question to be dropped from the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On what grounds?


Georges Parent: Dropped
.(Mr. Cardin.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, no.
I am not questioning the decision, but there must be a reason assigned. The minister cannot arbitrarily say "Question dropped".


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Has my hon. friend the leader of the opposition read the question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does he insist that it be answered?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that. What I did say was that a reason should be given, and it is not open to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services arbitrarily to say that a question shall be dropped; that is not within his jurisdiction.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is as much within my jurisdiction to say that it should be dropped as it is for the hon. gentleman opposite to say that it should not be dropped.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All that I ask is that reasons be given.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We in this house still have some rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not many, but a few.


Georges Parent: Dropped.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury)- No. I object to that.


FERTILIZER BONUS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is the government paying a bonus on the fertilizer used in the production of spring wheat in eastern Canada?
2.	If so, why is the government paying such bonus and at the same time paying a bonus in western Canada for summer-fallow rather than wheat?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Y'es.
2.	Spring wheat in eastern Canada is largely used for feed purposes, the supply of which has not been adequate for requirements. Assistance provided for summer-fallow for 1941 in western Canadg was limited to wheat acreage reduction which was summer-fallowed.


TRANSFERS FROM ARMY TO AIR FORCE
Mr. CORMAN:: 1.	Can a young man in training at Halifax, under the National Resources Mobilization Act, enlist at Hamilton, Ontario, in the Royal Canadian Air Force, when home on leave?

Questions
2.	If not, why not?
3.	Are there any arrangements for such transfers in different military districts?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No, except he make arrangements with the commanding officer of his unit and air force authorities before going on leave.
2.	On transfer from army to air force a man must be medically examined, his army pay adjusted, uniform and equipment turned in and deficiencies accounted for by the soldier, and formalities of discharge from the army, including discharge certificate, completed. There must be liaison between the commanding officer of the soldier's unit and the air force recruiting officer. To adjust these matters satisfactorily the man should be at his training centre or unit. These arrangements can be made at Halifax before the man leaves, however, in which event it is possible for him to enlist at Hamilton.
3.	Yes, under arrangement between army and air force, instructions have been issued and have been in operation for many months.
Every National Resources Mobilization Act soldier cannot enlist in the air force. During his first two months at the basic training centre an "R recruit" may freely enlist, and air force officers then may recruit these men at the centres. While at the advanced training centre, or on home defence service, the man cannot enlist in the air force unless he has made application therefor before commencing basic training, and the district officer commanding consents. After the man is made into a trained soldier and has become an integral part of an army he would not be allowed to transfer to the air force unless there were special reasons why it should be done.


CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government reached a decision on the subject of the adoption of a distinctive national flag for Canada?
2.	If so, what is that decision?
3.	If not, what is the reason that Canada has not her own flag?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by no. 1.
3.	Matter is one still under consideration.


Mr. ROY:: *
1.	Has the government declared war with other countries in 1939, 1940 and 1941, in the name of Canada as an autonomous country and independent of England?
2.	If so, are our armies fighting under a Canadian flag?
3.	If not, why have they not their own flag?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	It is substantially correct to say that Canada declared war with other countries in 1939, 1940 and 1941 as an autonomous country and independently of the United' Kingdom. It would, perhaps, <oe more correct to say that, following upon the decision of the parliament of Canada, advice was tendered to His Majesty the King by the Prime Minister of Canada. Pursuant to this advice, His Majesty approved the issuing of proclamations in Canada in his name declaring the existence of a state of war with Canada in the following cases: (a) Germany, September 10, 1939; (b) Italy, June 10, 1940; (c) Hungary, Roumania and Finland, December 7, 1941; (d) Japan, December 7, 1941.
2.	The Canadian armies do not fight under a Canadian flag as a national colour, as there is no flag lawfully authorized for general use. There are, however, divisional flags, the use of which is authorized for special purposes.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



QUESTIONS, PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS ENLISTMENTS-RECORDS BY MUNICIPALITIES

['Return tabled.']
Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.



Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What has been the apparent consumption
in Canada for each of the years 1937-1941 inclusive, of:	(a) spirits, (b) malt liquors,
(c)	wines?
2.	Did delegates of church and temperance representations wait on the government in October, 1941?
3.	If so, did the government express approval or disapproval of the representations made by the delegation?
4.	What is the amount of the appropriation made by the Department of National War Services for the purpose of educational work to discourage the use of alcoholic liquors?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DOMINION AND MUNICIPALITIES RESPECTING MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Mr. WINKLER:: 1. What agreements or contracts has the government with municipalities other than with the corporation of the city of Ottawa for services usually provided by municipalities?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	What valuation is placed on government real estate and buildings in the corporation of Ottawa?
3.	What relation or proportion does this figure bear toward the municipal assessment of the corporation of Ottawa?


GRANTS FOR CADET SERVICES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government consider reestablish

ing grants to school boards or boards of education for cadet services and towards the cost of uniforms and instructions?
2.	What was the prior policy?
3.	What is the present policy?
4.	Will any changes be considered so as to aid recruiting for the reserve army?
5.	Were any requests for such grants received by the government?
6.	If so, what action will be taken?


PRICE CEILING
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many manufacturing plants in Canada, if any, have closed down due to there being a price ceiling on manufactured goods and no such restriction on raw materials?
2.	Is an import bonus being paid by authority of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board on any articles of food or manufactured goods?
3.	If so, upon how many articles and what
are they?	_	.,	, .	...
4. Is a bonus being paid on certain articles in Canada in order to keep their cost to the consumer below the price eeiling?
5.	If so, on how many and what are they!


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.


GOLDEN BALL GARAGE BUILDING, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Has part of the building know-n as the Golden Ball Garage, on the corner of Sydney and Union streets, in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, been rented to the government.
2.	If so, what part, from whom and at what
re3t!When was it rented and for how long a period?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.



DOMINION ARSENALS


Mr. ROY:: 1.	What is the name of the doctor in Quebec whose duty it is to examine employees of both sexes working in the dominion arsenals at Quebec and at Yalcartier?
2.	Since the beginning of the war what salary
has been paid to him monthly for examinations, or for treatment of such employees in ease of accidents?	_
3.	What is the total amount paid to him for expenses, salary or honoraria of all kinds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



CANADIAN ARMY PENSIONS

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1. How many soldiers have been returned from overseas since the beginning of the present fMr. Winkler.]
war, (a) unfit for service; (b) unlikely to make satisfactory soldiers?	.
2.	Of this number how many are still serving in the Canadian army?
3.	Of those returned, (a) how many have applied for pensions; (b) how many have been held entitled thereto; (c) how many appeals have been taken against refusals to award pensions; (d) of these, how many (i) have been finally determined; (ii) how many still remain to be heard; (iii) in how many cases to date have appeals been allowed?
4.	What is the total amount paid to date and since the outbreak of the present war for pensions for services in the present war?



WAR SAVINGS CAMPAIGN

Mr. CHURCH:: What is the breakdown of the sum of $1,244,129.11, which was spent on the w'ar savings campaign to the end of 1941 with respect to, (a) salaries, (b) travelling expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) dinners and banquets, (e) entertainment, (f) billboards, (g) newspaper and magazine advertising, (h) radio, (i) local advertising and entertainment, and other publicity, (j) remuneration paid to personnel ?



CANADIAN ARMY-TRAINING FOR OFFICER RANK

Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Is it the rule of the Department of National Defence that a person who never served in any army or graduated from the Royal Military College, and who now desires to join the armed forces with officer rank, must first join up as a private and serve in the ranks as such for several months before he will be put in training for officer rank?
2.	Are there any exceptions or exemptions to this rule; and if there are, when were the exceptions and exemptions set up, to what classes of persons do they apply, in what parts of Canada are they being made effective, and what is the nature of the exceptions and exemptions and why are they set up?
3.	Are there boards to select prospective young Canadians both English and French to take officer training without first serving in the ranks?
4.	If there are any such boards who are the members of the various boards, what are the military qualifications of each member, when were the boards set up, and where are they located?
5.	How many young men (a) English speaking, (b) French speaking have been selected by these boards to take officer training without first serving in the ranks?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled.



WAR SAVINGS CAMPAIGN-REVENUE AND COSTS

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What amounts have been raised in each of the years, 1939, 1940 and 1941, through the sale of war savings certificates and stamps?
2.	What was the expenditure incurred in connection rvith the sale of war savings certificates and stamps in each of the above years for (a) advertising and sales promotion, (b) printing certificates and stamps, (c) compilation of

Questions as Orders for Returns
statistics, (d) expenses of war finance publicity committee, (e) administrative expenses of nation committee, (f) travelling expenses, (g) telephone and telegraph messages, (h) postage and sundries, (i) expenses of provincial committees, (j) travelling expenses, (k) telephone and telegraph messages, (1) postage, (m) sundries?



GRANTS OR BONUSES TO NOVA SCOTIA FISHERY PRODUCTS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What sums have been paid out or were earned in Nova Scotia in each of the calendar years 1937 to 1941, inclusive, as grants or bonuses on, (a) dry cod, (b) pickiled cod,
(c)	pickled herring, (d) pickled mackerel, (e) vinegar-cured herring?
2.	What are the names of the persons or firms to whom grants or bonuses have been paid, or who have made claims for such grants or bonuses on vinegar-cured herring in the calendar years 1937 to 1941, inclusive, stating the amount paid or claimed by each person Or firm for each year, and the quantity of fish in each case?



NEW GLASGOW, N.S. MILITARY TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence purchase or lease lands and buildings from the Standard Clay Products Limited, at or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of a military training centre?
2.	If so, what sums have been paid or are
payable up to December 31,	1941, to the
Standard Clay Products Limited for such lands and buildings as, (a) purchase price, (b) rentals ?
3.	What has been the total cost to December 31, 1941, on account of such training centre for, (a) improvements to grounds, (b) repairs or improvements to buildings, (c) new buildings,
(d)	equipment and installations in buildings and on premises, (e) total costs?
4.	Did the department enter into contracts with the Eastern Woodworkers for buildings or supplies in connection with the military training centre at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, in 1940 and 1941?
5.	If so, of what nature and to what value?
6.	Did the department purchase lumber from the Eastern Woodworkers for such centre?
7.	If so, what quantity and at what cost, during the years 1940 and 1941?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the total expenditure to December 31, 1941, in connection with the new Canadian National Railways station at Montreal, including excavation, building construction, furniture, furnishings, equipment of whatsoever nature, and also including rearrangement of tracks, yards and all other items incidental to the establishment of the new terminal, specifying, (a) expenditures by the government of Canada, (b) expenditures by the Canadian National Railways and subsidiaries?
2.	What further estimated sums are required to complete the project?
3.	What is the estimated completion date?
4.	What is, (a) tonnage of steel delivered to December 31, 1941, in connection with the project, (b) estimated tonnage of steel required to complete the project over and above tonnage delivered to December 31, 1941?
5.	Have municipalities been refused steel for, (a) street cars, (b) use in needed betterments of municipal public utilities and other municipal services that cannot be postponed till after the war?
6.	What is the policy involved and decided on?
7.	What municipalities were refused needed equipment as aforesaid?
8.	Is the Canadian National Railways, a public utility, building new ears and other equipment and betterments, and is it securing equipment denied to municipal public utilities?



UPLANDS AIRPORT RAILWAY EXTENSION

Mr. REID:: 1.	Was an application made to the Board of Transport Commissioners by the Canadian Pacific Railway for permission to link up with the Canadian National Railways within Uplands airport?
2.	Was the request granted?
3.	If not, what were the reasons given for refusing the application made by the Canadian Pacific Railway?
4.	What reasons were advanced by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Board of Transport Commissioners showing the need for duplication of railway services to Uplands airport?
5.	What number of tons of steel were used by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the construction of a line of track from Prescott to Uplands?



H.M. FORCES-SALUTES

Thomas Langton Church: What regulations are now contemplated with regard to the abolition of salutes by members of his majesty's forces when not on parade?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-WHEAT ACREAGE BONUS

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many claims were made to the Department of Agriculture for the wheat acreage reduction bonus prior to January 31, 1942, in each of the three prairie provinces?
2.	How many of such claims were (a) paid in full, (b) partly paid, (c) refused?
3.	What amount was paid in each of the three prairie provinces in connection with such claims?
4.	How many cheques were issued on the wheat acreage reduction bonus for (a) $1,000 to $5,000, (b) $5,000 to $10,000, (c) over $10,000?
5.	How many awards were made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in each of the three prairie provinces and what was the total amount paid in each province?
6.	How many farmers received payment under the prairie farm income in each of the three prairie provinces and how much was paid on same prior to January 31, 1942?

Questions as Orders for Returns



TRACADIE, N.B., ARTILLERY RANGE

Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many parcels of land have been
expropriated by the Department of National Defence for the artillery range at Tracadie, New Brunswick?	.
2.	From whom have they been acquired?
3.	What price was paid for each parcel?
4.	How many have not yet been settled for ?
5.	What amount of taxes, both for schools and municipal tax, including road tax, was due on each parcel?
6.	How were these taxes settled for?
7.	What amount of money was paid to Clovis P. Richard, M.L.A. (agent solicitor) for the Department of Justice, in searching the title, attending to the execution of the title deed, etc., for each parcel, showing detailed statement?
8.	What was the method used in arriving at a value of the various lots comprised within the area?
9.	Has any protest been filed by any one regarding the methods used to induce the settlers to hand over their properties to the department?
10.	Have any of the settlers protested against the adjustment of the amounts offered them in settlement for their lands? If so, what are their names ?
11.	Have any of these persons offered their lands gratis for the purpose for which they have been acquired, for the duration of the war, rather than accept the offer made by the department? If so, what are their names?
12.	What settlement was made with those who were living on lots approved by the government of New Brunswick, but for which no grants had been issued, and what amounts were paid in each case and by whom were these amounts paid?
13.	By whom were the several parcels of land appraised?
14.	Is this area in a French speaking community ?
15.	Did the appraisers sent to make agreements with the people for the sale of their lands speak French? If not, how was conversation carried on between the adjuster and the settler or owner of the land, and who acted as interpreter?
16.	What amount of money was paid to him and what are details of his account, both as interpreter and as taxi driver for the adjuster?
17.	How many of these lots are in Northumberland county (if any) and have any adjustments been made with the people living there?
18.	Is it the intention of the department to extend this range? If so, in what direction will it be extended?
19.	What amount of money was paid by way of adjustment, or compensation, to the commission in charge of the estate of George Dignard, how was the amount arrived at and how many lots of land were involved?
20.	Have any houses been destroyed on lands that have not yet been settled for? If so, whose ?



STE. ANNE HE LA POCATIERE, FISHERIES SCHOOL

Mr. ROY:: 1. Has the government paid any grant directly or through the medium of the provincial govern-
IMr. Perlcy.l
ment of Quebec to the fisheries school at Ste. Anne la Pocatiere, Quebec?
2. If so, for what amount and for what years?


Mr. MICHAUD:: Return tabled.



B.C. DOG-FISH LIVERS AND FISH LIVER OILS

Mr. REID:: 1.	Who is the controller of dog-fish livers and fish liver oils for the province of British Columbia?
2.	Under what department of government does such controller operate?
3.	What position did he occupy before appointment to this office?
4.	What salary does he receive?
5.	Has the Department of Fisheries any control or jurisdiction over such controller?
6.	Is the Department of Fisheries consulted by the controller in matters pertaining to the prices set by him?
7.	What is the maximum price allowed fishermen in British Columbia for dog-fish and other fish livers?
8.	Is any maximum price fixed on the fish liver oils processed and sold to the buyers or public by the manufacturers of these fish oils?
9.	What price is being paid to United States fishermen for dog-fish and other fish livers?
10.	What price is being charged by processers of fish liver oils to buyers in the United States?



BREN GUN-JOHN INCLIS PLANT

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What was the total amount of money expended by the government in building the necessary additions and repairs to the original John Inglis boiler plant to provide accommodation for the manufacture of Bren guns?
2.	What amount of money did the government spend in providing new equipment for this plant?
3.	What was the value of the old equipment transferred to this plant?



INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES LIMITED

Mr. MARSHALL:: What amounts have been paid in each of the years, 1936 to 1941, inclusive, to International Business Machines Limited, for rental of business and accounting machines by the various departments of the dominion government?



WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	At what places in Canada have housing units and staff houses been built by Wartime Housing Limited, and how many are being constructed at each place?
2.	How many houses were occupied at each place on January 31, 1942?
3.	How many were residing in each staff house on January 31, 1942?
4.	How many were employed at each staff house during January, 1942?
5.	What rent is being charged for each house by Wartime Housing Limited?
6.	In what centres have Wartime Housing Limited completed building houses and providing the necessary services?

Motions for Papers
7.	What was the average cost per unit, including all services?
8.	What was the total amount paid for the administration of Wartime Housing Limited up to January 31, 1942?
9.	What experience did Victor T. Goggin have as an architect or builder, prior to being appointed general manager of Wartime Housing Limited?
Wheat acreage reduction regulations


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total amount paid to date under the wheat acreage reduction regulations, and what amount is still to be paid?
2.	What is the total number of acres taken out of wheat production, (a) summer-fallow, (bl sown to coarse grains?
3.	What is the total cost of supervising and administering payment of this bonus?
4.	What are the names and addresses of persons who acted as supervisors and inspectors in the administration and payment of this bonus, and what amounts were paid to each by way of (a) salary, (b) expenses?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total amount paid under the
Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the crop year 1941-42?	.
2.	What is the total amount still to be paid for the crop year 1941-42?
3.	What amount has been paid under section 3 of the act, and what amount under section 4?
4.	What amount was paid in each of the prairie provinces?
5.	What was the total cost of administration of the said crop during the crop year 1941-42?
6.	What was the total amount received from the one per cent levy under the said act for the crop year 1941-42?
7.	What are the names and addresses of the persons employed as inspectors and supervisors under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the province of Saskatchewan, and what amount was paid to each in (a) salary, (b) expenses?



INDIANS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total Indian population in British Columbia at the 1941 census, (a) male, (b) female?
2.	How many Indian agencies are there in British Columbia and what are their names and locations?
3.	How many Indian schools are there in British Columbia?
4.	How many hospitals are assisted by the Indian department in British Columbia and what are their names and locations?
5.	What was the total expenditure for 1941 of each agency?



CANADIAN ARMY-CHAPLAINS

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many chaplains are there in the Canadian army, (a) in Canada, (b) overseas?
2.	How many (a) in Canada, (b) overseas are (1) Protestant, (2) Roman Catholic; (3) Jewish?
3.	What is the unit or numerical basis, if any, whereby entitlement of the said religious faiths to appointment of a chaplain is determined?
4.	How many chaplains are there in each of the following religious denominations, (a) Anglican; (b) United; (c) Presbyterian;
(d)	Baptist?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada or any officer thereof and any other person or persons relating to the paying of a high cost of living bonus to dependents of those serving in His Majesty's forces.



CANADIAN FORCES-RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS

Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing the number of officers and men serving in the active service forces of the army, navy and air force, with their religious affiliations as set out on their attestation papers.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to this motion, I should prefer to give the enlistments rather than men serving, for the reasons already indicated to the 'house,, so far as the army is concerned. Secondly, I am not in>
a position to give completely the religious affiliations of all men in the service. A compilation was made up until March or April, 1941, andi we got from that the percentages of different religious affiliations at that time. I think the only thing we could do would be to use those percentages and estimate the enlistments in the same proportions for each of the denominations. With these reservations I have no objection to the motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister suggests that there would be an immense amount of work involved1 in examining every one?


Charles Gavan Power: So far as air is concerned, I shall not be in a position to give numbers but percentages.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

James Alexander Marshall: For a copy of all recommendations made to the Canadian Wheat Board or the government by the advisory committee of the wheat board for the year 1941-42 and the year 1942-43.


James Angus MacKinnon: Inasmuch as the recommendations are confidential, interdepartmental documents, I suggest that the motion be dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister whether they are interdepart-

77S
Motions for Papers

mental documents? The wheat board is a body corporate, set up under statute. It is a wholly owned corporation in that sense. It is not a department of government, therefore I do not think that the minister's answer covers the position. He may hide behind some other reason, but not that one. Perhaps I should not use the word "hide." I withdraw that and say, take shelter.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the explanation given does cover the point, but another reason for asking that the motion be dropped is that they do deal with matters of government policy and as such are privileged.
Motion dropped.



DELEGATION OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY

Mr. TUSTIN:: For a copy of all instruments or other documents signed by any minister of the crown purporting to delegate authority vested in such minister by any act of parliament, or otherwise, to a deputy minister or person holding the rank of deputy minister or any other official of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
regard to this motion, having regard to the explanation given by the Secretary of State, and particularly in view of the provisions of the Interpretation Act, which I have not read for a good many years, this may be dropped. I understand that the hon. member has written a letter indicating the information he wants.
Motion dropped.



SYDNEY, N.S., WARTIME HOUSING

Mr. GILLIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents exchanged between the government of Nova Scotia, the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia and the Department of Munitions and Supply or any other department of the federal government, on the question of the desirability of Wartime Housing Limited, carrying out an emergency programme of wartime housing to care for the needs of the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-DISMISSAL OF W. H. WHITESIDE

Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents passing between the civil service commission, the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada and any person or persons from April, 1941, to date, having to do with the appointment of William Henry Whiteside, of Innisfail, Alberta, as field supervisor, soldier settlement, grade 1, and his subsequent dismissal.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it quite probable that all this correspondence can be brought down

in the order asked for. I should like however to make a reservation. There might possibly be some correspondence of an interdepartmental kind which would be privileged, but with that reservation I have no objection to the order passing.



BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland)::  769,826 30
Publicity expenses:
Newspaper and magazine advertising.... 476,677 00 Posters, including billboard posters and
posting	 79,565	83
Radio advertising... 86,618 17 Local advertising.... 160,888 13
Other publicity	 254,319 85

  1,058,068	98
Commissions to. individual canvassers on general subscriptions. 1,551,713 80 Remuneration to hanks, trust and loan companies-service fee for handling and delivering bonds. .. 1,750,000 00 Remuneration to investment dealers and stockbrokers re pooled subscriptions	
3,293,040	00Total	$8,786,570	94
The said return to show the details of each of the main items set out aforesaid.
Mr. IL8LEY:	I suggest that this stand
until the mover is here. I have a few observations to make on the motion.
Mr.	HANSON (York-Sunbury):	There	is
no objection to its standing, but we should like to get the information if possible.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will argue that at the
time.


Georges Parent: Motion stands.

Internments



NEW BRUNSWICK FISHERY REGULATIONS

Mr. HAZEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, written representations and reports made to the government and/or the Department of Fisheries dealing with the netting of fish in the non-tidal waters of the Saint John river during the five years prior to the passing of an order in council, on May 9, 1940, which is now embodied in section 9 of the special fishing regulations for New Brunswick.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all orders in council, reports and other documents in the possession of the government relative to the Defence of Canada Regulations. Also a copy of all correspondence exchanged with the provinces relative to the enforcement of blackouts, covered by section 35 of the Defence of Canada Rules and Regulations, as -well as a copy of the order in council delegating this authority to provincial attorneys-general instead of to the district military authorities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to this motion, I think it will be recognized at once that to try to meet its request would involve an infinite amount of search in the departments for reports and documents and also much time and expense in copying the same. The motion asks "for a copy of all orders in council, reports and other documents in the possession of the government relative to the defence of Canada regulations." There is a very large amount of correspondence on that subject. The orders in council themselves have already been tabled. If the hon. member would indicate in a specific way the particular reports he has in mind, it might be possible to meet the request. As regards the rest of the order, I think it should be said that there may be some correspondence which it would not be in the public interest to disclose and in that event it would not be brought down. So far as the remainder of the correspondence is concerned, there can be no exception to bringing it down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
there is a good deal in what the Prime Minister says, especially with reference to the first part. I suggest that the motion be allowed to stand. The hon. member will be here probably this afternoon and he will see what the Prime Minister has said.


Georges Parent: Motion stands.



CANADIAN ARMY (RESERVE)-ATTESTATIONS FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a return showing the number of men called up for either 30-day or 4-month training pursuant to the National Resources Mobilization 44561-504
Act who enlisted and were attested for overseas service in any branch of the armed forces during each month since October, 1940.



WEYBURN, SASK., AIRPORT

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: For a copy of all contracts and agreements entered into by the Canadian government and any person or persons in connection with the acquiring of the site and the construction of the airport at Weyburn, Saskatchewan.



SHIPPEGAN, N.B., PUBLIC WORKS

Douglas King Hazen: For a copy of all payrolls, vouchers and accounts in connection with construction and/or repairs by the Department of Public Works during the months of August to December, 1941, inclusive of (a) Shippegan wharf, and (b) Shippegan gully breakwater, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick.



INTERNMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to a press report appearing in Saturday's papers a delegation from the Civil Liberties Association of Toronto-Toronto, of all places-headed by Mr. B. K. Sandwell, who was also designated as leading spokesman for the delegation, presented on Friday last to the Prime Minister and a group of cabinet ministers a memorandum urging, among other things, open trials in all cases for internees and those charged under the defence of Canada regulations, and that certain classes, I think including trade unions, be given representation on tribunals sitting on cases other than open trials. The report further states that Mr. Sandwell told newspaper men after the two hour hearing that the Prime Minister had expressed "entire sympathy" and given the delegation to understand that action would follow.
I now ask the Prime Minister if this report is in substance true; if he did express himself as being in "entire sympathy" with the request of this delegation, and what changes in policy have been promised, having in mind the statements of policy enunciated from time to time by the late Minister of Justice, based I think largely on the reports of the special committee of this house, and followed in practice up to this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report is quite correct when it states that I was in entire sympathy with the representations made. Those representations will receive the consideration of
Labour Conditions

the Department of Justice. The extent to which they may be acted upon will be made known in due course.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a question I wish to ask the Minister of Finance. Will he be good enough to lay on the table of the house as soon as possible all correspondence with the provinces in regard to the dominion-provincial agreements? I recall that some months ago at my request some correspondence was tabled, but it was sparse and unimportant. Three weeks ago to-day, on February 2, an order for return requiring the production of all this correspondence was passed on the motion of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross).
I understand that all the provinces with one exception have signed the appropriate agreement-


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
misunderstood the minister's statement. I am led to believe that there is a substantial volume of correspondence which in the public interest should be made public. At all events I request that such correspondence as has not already been brought down be tabled as soon as possible. May I add as an additional reason that validating legislation is now before the legislature of New Brunswick and it is important that the correspondence with that province at least should be made public immediately.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I shall be able to lay that on the table to-morrow. Such at any rate is my intention.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I sent a copy of it to the Secretary of State, not knowing that the Minister of Labour would be in his seat to-day. It arises out of a telegram received this morning from one of the officials of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' union of Kirkland Lake, a copy of which I understand is in the hands of the Minister of Labour.
My information is that a formula was worked out between the Department of Labour, the union and the operators, to the effect that on termination of the strike the men were to return to work without discrimination, and that the rule of seniority would be observed as far as possible. This understanding is not being lived up to by the operators. Rank discrimination is being practised, and an intolerable situation is developing. In view of the fact that the Department of Labour negotiated the return to work and is a party to that agreement, what is the Department of Labour doing to see that the terms of the agreement are being enforced?


Humphrey Mitchell: The fact is that the strikers returned to work in greater numbers than could be absorbed by the mines. In view of the departure of several hundred miners from the area during the strike, and the consequent reduction in employment available for surface workers, the men returned unconditionally without intervention by the Department of Labour. A delegation of miners did wait on the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr, McLarty) and asked that the department should seek to have the men reemployed without discrimination. On February 14 the department sent the following telegram to Mr. Robert Bryce, president of Macassa Mines and chairman of the operators' committee:
Minister of Labour has been asked to request the Kirkland Lake mining companies that as men return to work they be reemployed without discrimination and that seniority rights be respected. Minister would appreciate a statement in reply.
On February 16 Mr. Bryce sent the following telegram in reply:
As the reopening of various sections of the mines permits the procedure outlined in your telegram to me being followed as closely as possible having due and proper regard for the efficiency and safety of the operations.
Representations contained in the telegram from Mr. James Rankin, vice-president of the Kirkland Lake local, have been referred by the departmental officials to the mining authorities, and when further information is available I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMHERST, N.S., FOR LACK OF REROLLING MATERIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: On February 18 last I inquired of the Minister of Munitions and Supply as to the laying off of 150 men at the rolling mills of the Canada Car and Foundry company at

Airports
Amherst, Nova Scotia, owing to the shortage of material. At that time I was informed that there was material available. The minister's reply was to the effect that he did not have sufficient information to answer the question at the moment but would make further inquiries. Is the minister now in a position to give the house further information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, as I promised, and I find the situation is that the raw material for this mill is used rail from the railways. The fact of the matter is that the railways are so hard pressed for rail at the present time that they are not able to offer rail for sale; and so far as my officers are concerned, they know of no alternative source of supply.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air. I am sorry I was unable to send more promptly to his office notice of the purport of my question, but if he is not prepared to answer to-day it will be quite all right.
A few nights ago hon. members may have listened to a broadcast from Chicago during the course of which the broadcaster took strong exception to the remarks of the premier of Ontario with reference to the United States navy, and then asked a question. Apparently the broadcaster was unfamiliar with the political set-up of the provinces under which the provinces have separate jurisdiction and the dominion government has complete control over air transport. Not knowing that, he said, in effect: I ask Mr. Hepburn why his government prevents the flying of United States bombers via Edmonton, Grande Prairie, Fort St. John, Watson Lake and White Horse on their way to Fairbank, Alaska.
I was up there last year so I know something about some of these air fields. I would ask the minister if the broadcaster was correct in his statement. I understand the United States have authority to send their bombers by that route.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very glad to say that the United States army air force, and I think the navy air force, have been constantly, particularly within the last few weeks, sending
bombers and other aircraft up to Alaska through the facilities built last year by the Canadian government.



QUESTION AS TO DEFENCE MEASURES IN STRATEGIC AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 I asked the Minister of National Defence what steps if any were being taken to protect the airports in the Yukon and northern British Columbia. At that time the minister told me he would consult with the Minister of National Defence for Air. I repeated the question on February 11, and at that time the minister said, at page 499 of Hansard:
My hon. friend knows, as I spoke to him personally, that the matter is at present under discussion between the Minister of National Defence for Air and myself and the chiefs of staff.
That was twelve days ago and we have heard nothing since. If there is any reason why the answer should not be given or why I should not know whether or not the airports are being defended, well and good; but I had a communication to-day from a resident of a town near one of these airports, perhaps the most important of them, who said that following a meeting of the citizens they had communicated with the officer commanding military district No. 11, which includes the Yukon, whose reply was that it had been ruled that the Yukon was not in the defence area. I do not know whether the Japanese would be kept out by that ruling; I doubt if they would. These airports certainly are worth defending, because the government has spent millions of dollars on them and they are being used both by Canada and by the United States. Many United States bombers are making use of those airports day in and day out, on their way north, and they should be protected.


James Layton Ralston: In the first place I can say to my hon. friend that the matter has been completely overlooked by me, or I would have called him up, as I did previously when I asked him to allow me to consult the chiefs of staff. I have not had a report as yet; but if I may anticipate the session to-morrow I can say to him now that already there is a blanket defence of these aerodromes. My hon, friend realizes that you do not always defend aerodromes by immediate local garrisons; but apart from that, I shall have a report from the chief of staff and will deal directly with my hon. friend.
Secret Session-Procedure

WAR INDUSTRIES	AIRGRAPH SERVICE



WORKING HOURS IN PLANTS PRODUCING WAR SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I am sorry I did not send him in advance a copy of the question but I did not know that he was going to be in the house to-day.
On February 2, I asked the Acting Minister of Labour a question in regard to the working of our factories in Canada which are producing war supplies. I sought to find out how many factories were working full time and how many were working only part time. The acting minister at that time informed me in effect that he did not know but that there were negotiations being carried on between the dominion and the provinces to find out how many factories were really working full time. The office of the director of public information has released a publication, the weekly bulletin for the United States newspapers, of February 11 and 17, 1942, volume 2, No. 7, at page 3 of which I find the following:
Every aircraft plant in Canada is booked solid at least until the end of 1943; some into 1944, and even 1945.
I should like the minister to tell me which of these statements is correct, and if he would kindly give me the correct answer to the question I asked the acting Minister of Labour on February 2. I should like to know if this statement is true.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. gentleman, of course, said he did not give me notice of his question.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a little too much to expect that at such short notice I should know how many factories are working on full time, how many on part time and how many on what is called short time, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that if the information can be obtained I will get it for him.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is this statement true, as issued by the director of public information?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is not true?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know; I have not read it.



POSSIBILITY OF EXTENSION OF DELIVERY TO OVERSEAS TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: On Thursday last the hon. member
for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question with regard to the extension of airgraph service to our men serving in the middle east.
Representations have been made to the United Kingdom postal authorities respecting the use of the airgraph service from Canada to members of the armed forces in the middle east. Airgraph messages received, intended for the middle east, at present are sent on the original message form by air to the United Kingdom, where the messages are photographed and transmitted to destination through the medium of the British airgraph system.
When there are sufficient messages daily from Canada to the middle east to justify a separate film daily for the middle east, items will then be photographed in Canada and the film sent to destination via the United Kingdom or such other air route as may be more expeditious. Messages will be delivered at destination through the medium of the British airgraph system.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the house decided that to-morrow a secret session would be held. At the time I made a brief announcement as to the procedure that it was intended we would follow at the secret session. One phase of that procedure would be the resolving of the house into committee of the whole in order to permit of greater freedom of discussion on the matters which may be before the house. In order that we may follow the regular procedure of the ordinary sittings of the house, I think it would be advisable that an item relating to war or defence should be before the committee. I think also that it would be more appropriate we should resolve ourselves into committee of supply in an open session, in order to have an item before the committee, than to reserve that procedure for to-morrow when proceed^ ings will be in secret.
In the circumstances I was going to ask hon. members, seeing that I had not given notice on Friday of an intention to move the house into committee of supply to-day, if

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
they would agree to my calling the first item on the order paper to-day, in order that we may immediately resolve the house into committee of supply and, in committee, to have one item called. This would not be for the purpose of discussion of the item in committee but simply for the purpose of having before the committee at a later stage an item that might, with the consent of the committee, be regarded as broad enough to enable its members to discuss generally matters relating to the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should think there could be no objection to the course indicated by the Prime Minister, and we shall be glad to consent.


Mr. COLD WELL:: We have no objection to the Prime Minister's suggestion.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: There is no objection on our part.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, looking through the items, I observe that all those relating to defence or war services are specified as "other than war appropriations." It will be recalled, of course, that the defence items appear in the war appropriation bill. In the circumstances I think the most appropriate item to call would be No. 206 under the Department of Pensions and National Health, at page 27 of the estimates, "European *war pensions." The European war would be broad enough, I should think, to cover what we have in mind, though to-day the war has become a world war instead of a European war.



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
206. European war pensions, $38,000,000.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mc-Larty:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the taking of the votes of the qualified voters on any question submitted by way of plebiscite and for such purposes to make provision for the printing and publication of a plebiscite act and instructions issued thereunder, the preparation of voters' lists and other
plebiscite documents, including forms and ballot papers, to provide for the fees, allowances, expenses or other remuneration of certain officials and employees.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, when the house
adjourned on Friday last I had been speaking on the underlying principle of the resolution,
and I then registered my firm opposition to it. I shall not repeat those observations to-day.
We, sitting on this side of Your Honour, while registering our firm disapproval, will now seek to analyse as judicially as possible the detailed proposals with a view to improving them. We shall examine the government's detailed proposals in as cool andi dispassionate a manner as possible, and not as partisans. We shall seek to offer to the government that constructive criticism which has been our constant objective in. all aspects of the war programme.
There are however a number of questions which I believe should be answered by the government at this stage of the discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did I hear
someone say "louder"?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I cannot face all parts of the house. I have only one face, and I believe I should speak to the Chair. However I shall do the best I can to have hon. members hear me.
I first ask the government to give the house and country a straightforward pronouncement indicating what action they will take if the plebiscite is decided in the affirmative. I think we have the right to know that, and I say the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) owes it to the country to tell it that much. Up to date he has studiously avoided giving any indication of the government's proposals. I tell him now, as I told him before, that that is not good enough, and that the people of Canada expect something more.
The Prime Minister has at his disposal all the facts of the situation. He is in a position to forecast the future requirements of our forces, and the means by which it will be necessary to raise them. We have not that information. We are entitled to those facts, and to a government pronouncement concerning them.
I therefore put this direct question to the Prime Minister: If and when he is released from his past commitments, what action has he in view? I request an answer to that
/84	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
question. Surely he must be in a position to tell that to the house and country. Does he not think the people of Canada are entitled to know what his intentions are, before they vote on the plebiscite? Unless the people know his intentions they will be voting blindly, voting to give him a -blank cheque. What'direction or leadership is there in that procedure? What enlightenment have the people of Canada received from the Prime Minister as to why they should vote yea or nay?
Further, I believe the Prime Minister should tell the house and country what he will do if the result of the plebiscite is indecisive- that is, if there should be a very small majority in favour of releasing him from his commitments, or a small majority the other way. Will he take the attitude of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at the time of the temperance plebiscite, and say that a small majority does not give him a mandate to proceed with his proposals, notwithstanding the fact that the enemy may be knocking at our doors?
Last night I listened to a radio broadcast. With some of it I agreed, and with some I did not agree. It was an address by Professor Thompson of Manitoba university. Among other things he said that the week Singapore fell was the blackest week in a whole century. I agreed with that. Yet here we are, twiddling about a plebiscite to release the Prime Minister.
I place this question before him: Suppose that only fifty per cent of the qualified electors cast a ballot on this plebiscite, and as a result only twenty-seven per cent or thirty per cent of the total electorate favour the release of the government from its past commitments-and that may well happen-what will the Prime Minister do? I have known of general elections in my own constituency where not more than sixty per cent of the people voted, and I fear that is what will happen in the present instance. How will the government interpret a vote of, we will say, twenty-seven per cent of the total electorate?
These are questions which naturally arise in the minds of all of us. Here is another situation which I can visualize, and which may very well happen-and I wonder if the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) would be good enough to lower his voice. If he is going to talk in this chamber while an hon. member is on his feet, then I suggest he should lower his voice, or leave the chamber. I cannot continue if the minister continues his talking too. Only one of us can talk at a time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am talking to one of your
supporters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My supporter is a very reasonable man, and usually the minister is too. But it is very disquieting to have to hear the minister, even if he is talking to a gentleman as high placed in my affections as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), when I am trying to make a reasoned argument.
Here is another question I put to the Prime Minister: What will happen if the plebiscite carries by a large majority in seven or eight provinces, and is defeated in one or two? How will the Prime Minister interpret that result? Will he feel at liberty to proceed with his proposals-if he has any to make- or will those proposals be abandoned? That is something about which we should be informed. The house and country are entitled to know the answers to these questions.
Then, I put this further question to the Prime Minister: If there is a large majority, a substantial majority or, indeed, any majority, against the release of the Prime Minister from his commitments, what will he do then? Will he interpret this result to mean that his government has no mandate to defend Canada, the empire and the whole family of allied nations, to the last man and the last dollar?-and it may well come to that. Or will he interpret it to mean that his government has lost the confidence of the people? What will he do in these circumstances?
These are questions which are bothering the Canadian people and, I am sure, bothering hon. members in the house, even those who blindly follow the administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, some of them blindly follow the administration; and wrhen I say that I do not believe I am putting the case too strongly.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They never had their eyes opened.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If one were to recall the adulation heaped upon the Prime Minister by some of his followers in the country, one would think that he was omnipotent. I should think that the Prime Minister if he had any-I shall not use the word I might use-I should think he would be revolted by such adulation as I have heard coming from hon. members opposite. To me it would be most embarrassing. The Prime Minister would be the first man to admit that he is only human, and that he has as many-

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
imperfections as most of us. I say that hon. members opposite blindly follow their leader, without any why or wherefore.


An hon. MEMBER:: So do the people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So much the worse for the people, then.


Mr. ROWE:: You have not talked to them all yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A reasoned and informed public opinion in Canada is something that we want. I am afraid throughout the country there is too much blind complacency-the blind following the blind. There is a lot of it. Public opinion in Canada needs an awakening to the true position of affairs. They are beginning to awaken on the east coast. Where are the two members for Halifax? Where are they to-day? We may hear from them to-morrow. They have been called down by their constituents, and the question of the defence of the east coast is being put up to these two hon. gentlemen, not by any partisan committee, but by the people of Halifax, who know that it is not possible to guarantee the defence of their fair city. They are alarmed about it.


Mr. KINLEY:: They are better off than in other parts of the province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I daresay they are, but that does not mean much. I do not mean to be an alarmist. I do not believe the people of Halifax are in immediate danger of invasion. I should think that invasion of the east coast of Canada is one of the most remote possibilities, although the escape of the German battleships from Brest is a menace to the Atlantic coast. There is a certain amount of danger of a sporadic attack on the city of Halifax, as there is on the city of Vancouver.


An hon. MEMBER:: And on Port Darwin.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Port Darwin is nearer to the Japanese forces. But a sporadic attack on our coasts is a possibility. Therefore I think the people of this country have a right to know what are the government's proposals in a given case. I have instanced three or four of them, and I ask the Prime Minister to tell, when he comes to speak on this resolution, if he does, what the government are going to do about these things. Will he tell the people what will be done in certain eventualities? Or are the people to be content to follow blindly, trusting in the Prime Minister-trusting in the Prime Minister whose aim, as long as I can remember, has been to assume and continue to hold political power. That has been the
chief ambition of my right hon. friend all through his lifetime. If you do not believe me, I call to your attention a book which has recently appeared in this country, written by Mr. Bruce Hutchison. Read what he says- and he is not an unfriendly critic of the Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is no authority.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not even know the gentleman except to see him, but I would think he is a student of public affairs and of Canadian political history. I commend to hon. gentlemen the reading of that book, and if I can help sell a few copies for him, so much the better.
There is another question I want to ask the government. What will be the attitude of the Prime Minister and of his cabinet colleagues while the plebiscite campaign is proceeding? Will they campaign for a favourable vote, or will they campaign against releasing the government from its obligations? Both questions are pertinent having regard to what must be the division in public opinion in certain quarters in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: What will the leader of the opposition do?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am going to tell you before I am through. I am not entitled to be put on the spot at this moment, but I am going to be frank. I am going to tell the people of this country and the Conservative party that they should vote yes, without any question. Then, if the Prime Minister and the government do not proceed, we will turn on the heat just as strong as we can, so that this country shall have an all-out war effort.
What will the government do while the plebiscite campaign is proceeding? I ask again these two questions: Will they campaign to release the government? Will they campaign to defeat the object of the plebiscite? What will the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) do? I ask him now, where is he going to be on this plebiscite?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in answering my hon. friend. I find it extraordinary that he should ask such a question of me. I am a member of the government and I stand with the government. If I were not taking that attitude I would not be entitled to the position I hold in the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not understood yet what the minister's attitude is.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very clear.
786	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I interpret the minister correctly, he is going out to campaign to release the government from its pledge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And then what will he do, if the government is released?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As much as my hon. friend will do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As much as I will do? The minister knows exactly where I stand in regard to releasing the government. I have stated my position. But if the government are released, then what? Where will the Minister of Transport be then?
Will the Prime Minister and his colleagues address meetings and give radio broadcasts during the campaign? What opportunity will be provided for leaders and representatives of other parties in this house, and other bodies of public opinion in this country, to express their views over the national radio network?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member going to oppose it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister evidently was not listening. He is not informed; he is not up to date. What opportunity, I ask, will be provided for the leaders of other parties in this country and other bodies of public opinion to express their views over the radio, free of charge, just as the government does? That is a pertinent question, and I desire to press it. What facilities will be afforded to me to tell the people of Canada over the radio, when the time arrives, what I think they ought to do? This is a question which I think should be answered while the resolution is still under discussion and before the bill is introduced. That is all I have to ask the Prime Minister at the moment, but some other questions may occur to me as I go along.
The Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) estimated that the cost of the plebiscite would be one and a half million dollars. I am going to ask him to give us a break-down of that amount when we get into committee, and I give him notice now. I fear it will be very much more than a million and a half dollars-and it will be a million and a half dollars of the taxpayers' money which will be absolutely wasted unless we have some assurance that the government will act on the plebiscite vote.
When will the plebiscite be held? I think we ought to have more specific information on that point. Time, I suggest, is an allimportant factor, and under conditions as

they exist to-day, if the plebiscite must be taken, I urge that it be taken at the earliest possible day.
I welcome the announcement that all soldiers, including those who are under twenty-one years of age, will be allowed to vote. I ask the Secretary of State this question: I assume that the vote will be taken under the jurisdiction of his department?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under the chief electoral officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To whom does he report?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The Secretary of State is only a contact point between him and the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is the man to direct the vote. There must be somebody here as spokesman of the chief electoral officer, and I am taking it for granted that the Secretary of State is that spokesman; therefore I am asking him to give us some information as to how the vote will be taken in England. What arrangements will be made to take the votes of airmen and others who are in far distant theatres of war such as Libya and Burma? They are entitled to vote, just as much as a soldier in Newfoundland.
I come to another important proposition. If the plebiscite is carried in the affirmative, will the Prime Minister bring his detailed proposals, if any, for increased effort as regards the mobilization of man-power-I am for the moment limiting it to that, but it need not necessarily be so limited, it should probably cover the whole gamut of mobilization, not only of man-power but of wealth and material resources-to the House of Commons, where chey may be passed upon, and where they ought to be passed upon? Or will he merely seek the repeal of section 3, the limiting clause of the mobilization act, and then institute his policies by order in council? If this is to be done by order in council, I object. Whatever may have been said of the Military Service Act of 1917, the proposals were brought down to parliament and they were debated here and they were improved here. That is the only democratic way of doing it. In other words, will the Prime Minister interpret an affirmative result as giving the government a free hand, or merely as giving parliament a free hand? There is a distinction between the two. In my view any proposals which may follow the plebiscite should be brought down to this house and passed in the form of legislation. so that the people's representatives may have something to say about them.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
I believe there is a terrible sense of frustration on the part of private members of this house. They have not a word to say about this question of mobilizing man-power, wealth or material resources. Why, they are not even rubber stamps, because all these things are done by order in council, and they never know a word about anything-good, bad, or indifferent-until it is all over.
Mr. McDONALD (Pontiacl: What a herol


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if the hon. member has courage enough to stand up and make his interjection, let him make it.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Quite a hero!


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I never posed as a hero, but I have never been a rubber stamp, and I never will be.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that to institute by order in council any elaborate scheme of compulsory service of man-power or of mobilization of resources and wealth would be quite improper, no matter how extensive may be the powers of the governor in council in that respect.
I now desire to make a few brief observations on the concrete proposals as indicated by the Secretary of State.
The modus operandi is to be governed not so much by legislation as by the regulations authorized by the legislation. I believe that is a correct interpretation of what he had to say. Now our ordinary election law is fully covered by the Dominion Elections Act, and I want to point out to the minister and to hon. members that the regulations passed under that act, speaking generally, are interpretative, not legislative. Under this proposed act the regulations will not be interpretative; they will be legislative. Is that not a correct statement, and does it not accurately interpret the minister's position? If that be true, I think, it is wrong in principle and it is derogating from the powers of this parliament that we should delegate by this bill of ten sections power to legislate by order in council. God knows we have had enough of that in this country. This is not a war matter. It is not something which is being dealt with under the War Measures Act. It is being dealt with by parliament up to a limited point. Why should any legislative functions be left to the governor in council to be passed under regulation? I put that question to hon. gentlemen, and to the minister. Is it too much to ask that the policy of the law be changed to conform to that of the Dominion Elections Act? That is all I am asking for. It is a matter of principle. I ask the minister to take that into consideration. If, however, the government is to go on and legislate by regulation, then I do suggest to
the members of this committee which is to be, that they will have to exercise the greatest possible care in framing the regulations, and I express the hope that the committee will examine them very carefully.
I was glad to learn-I think I am correct in this assumption-that the regulations as drafted to date are not immutable. I believe the minister used that very word. Otherwise there could not be any point in referring them to a committee. We have that assurance, that they are subject to review, and I hope that review will be given to them by this committee. But let not the Secretary of State lose sight for one moment of the point I have just raised, that under the elections act the regulations are interpretative, not legislative; under the proposed act they are legislative and not specially interpretative-and that, I think, is wrong. To my mind it is a defect in the bill.
Until we have the detailed provisions of the bill I do not wish to comment on the question of qualification and disqualification of voters. That is a matter which has often been the subject of debate in this house. There are particular situations which will have to be dealt with with great care; there are certain people who ought to vote, and certain people who ought not to vote. At this moment I am going to make just one suggestion to the minister in the utmost good faith, and based, I think, on principle. In August, 1940, we had a national registration, when our population, male and female, above the age of sixteen years were all required to register. By the way, that registration cost something like $900,000- quite a substantial sum. I wonder if we have had value received for it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The work was mostly
voluntary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And, a
good deal of the work was done voluntarily, as I am reminded and as I happen to know from personal observation. However, I have often had doubt whether that registration was one hundred per cent complete. I do not know. Some estimate, I suppose, might be formed by the bureau of statistics, the people who had charge of the census and so on. But I would urge upon the government that it be a condition precedent, so far as the civilian vote in Canada is concerned, that every voter who presents himself for the ballot produce his registration certificate, and that unless he or she does so he or she shall not vote. I urge the government to adopt this suggestion. The reason is obvious. Anyone who has not registered and complied with the law may properly be classed as a shirker, and no shirker should be allowed to vote on this plebiscite.
788	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson ( York-Sanbury)
In respect of the other aspects of disqualification I shall reserve further comment.
From the minister's statement, I observe that a new electoral list is to be compiled. From something I saw in the newspapers a while back I was very fearful that the government were contemplating using the lists of the 1940 elections, and I called attention to it at that time. I was told that the matter had not been considered, or something to that effect. These lists of course are two years old and they would be most unsuitable, and for the reason that the minister gave. I desire to correct myself on the question of statistics. I had in mind just the males coming of age. I find that in the year 1941 approximately 107,000 males attained the age of 21, and 106,000 females, making a total of 213,000, or in two years 426,000. The ten year average it stated to be 204,000 per annum, so that since the 1940 lists were made up nearly half a million voters have come of age. That is a large number and they are undoubtedly entitled to vote.
Then there is the question of change in the location of population, to which the Secretary of State made reference. All these considerations make it imperative that a new list should be compiled, and I commend the government for that decision.
On the question of open or closed lists, there are two views. I have always favoured open lists for rural areas, where everyone knows everybody else and where there is not a chance, not one in a thousand, of any electoral fraud. But with respect to urban areas, I am of a contrary opinion. I think there ought to be closed lists there, even if there is to be a revision. There is no danger in the rural areas, but there is a very grave danger in certain urban localities. One has but to follow the history of elections in one of the great cities of this country to visualize what will happen if the principle of open lists is to be followed in all the large urban areas, and I do beg the government to reconsider this aspect even if it should involve the cost of revision in urban areas and some little delay and expense.
There are one or two other things that have bothered me about the plebiscite. Who is to man the polls and see that the law is complied with, and that people do not vote who are not entitled to vote? I do not know whether consideration has been given to this question. Then there is another question. How in winter or in early spring are the voters to be drawn to the polls? I know the answer will be that there is no provision in the law now, and I do not suggest that there should be. But let us not delude ourselves.
I have run seven or eight elections myself.

Hon. gentlemen opposite and around me have all run elections, and they know that the biggest problem is getting the people to the polls.


Mr. REID:: Most of them will be walking at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They will not walk; that is just the point. I remember sending a horse and buggy once for a woman to come to the poll and she absolutely refused to come unless she could be brought in a fine motor car. That is the attitude of people. They do not want to come and vote. Who is to get them out? I do not suggest that the government should arrange to have them driven to the polls. It is against the law now, I believe. But that is a provision of the law that is more honoured in the breach than the observance, and we all know it in our hearts. Why continue it in the statute? I suggest,, however, that some provision should be made with regard to scrutineers. That would not cost a great deal. I have nothing further to offer on that line at the moment, but I do know that it is important.
My learned and hon. friend the member for Regina city (Mr. McNiven) rather anticipated in his question what I am about to say now. Since this whole proposal was mooted I have given serious and rather continuous thought to the attitude that I should take with regard to the matter. One's first reaction is to say, "to Hades with the thing," but that will not do. It is too serious. A responsibility rests upon me not only as a citizen of the country but as a member of this parliament occupying this position for the time being. I cannot ignore that responsibility. I just cannot do it. I have given consideration to what I should do. On Friday last the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysiborough (Mr. Kirk), who does not often take part in the debates in this house, suggested that I should go out and make the result decisive. Well, that is beyond my power, but I know what the hon. member meant, and he was well-intentioned. Then I asked him this question: Does the hon. member say that it is any responsibility of mine to go out and ask the people to vote for this plebiscite? I put it to him and he replied, I think, in the affirmative; and right off the bat, without stopping to consider and think as one ought to do, I said, "It is not my baby." Now, I do not wish anyone to infer that, because I am opposed to the holding of a plebiscite and do not wish to father it, I consider that to be the end of my responsibility. I do not.
Briefly, what is the position? The government is asking the people for a release from its pledge, given gratuitously and voluntarily,

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Noseworthy
and that it be allowed to take whatever course it desires. If the plebiscite is defeated the government will construe that position as indicating that it should not be released from its commitment-it may take that view. If the plebiscite carries we have no undertaking or guarantee that anything will be done. That appears to me to leave us all in an impossible position. I have a sense of frustration. The only person who wins anything in that is the Prime Minister. He is freed. Heads I win, tails you lose-or to put it in the reverse, heads he wins, tails I lose and the rest of us lose.
We ought not to be put in that position, but we are; and after the most mature reflection I cannot take the responsibility of advising anyone to vote no. because that would not only tie the hands of the government but would make it impossible for any further steps to be taken with regard to extending the man-power of the country for service beyond the territorial limitations of Canada. That I think is an impossible position for this country to occupy at this critical time. It should not be in that position.
On the other hand, if the vote carries we have absolutely no guarantee that anything will be done, and that brings to me a feeling of frustration. Neither of these positions is acceptable, but on the theory that if one has to make a decision and choose between the lesser of two evils, I am going to ask the people of the country to vote to release the government, and I now do so. I call upon the adherents of the Conservative party in Canada to go to the polls and vote yes on this plebiscite. That is the loyal and patriotic course. That is the course which may make possible the achievement of the objectives we have as a party.
As to what course I shall pursue to that end myself during the campaign on the plebiscite, I have not finally determined. I had thought of going to my own constituency, calling a public meeting, at my own expense, advertising it, asking the people to come, presenting to them the facts of the position as judicially as I could, and urging them to go to the polls and vote in the affirmative, in order that the government may be freed. If the government does not then act I notify them that the fight of the loyal people of this country' will just be beginning.
I do not propose to speak at any greater length at this time. In committee and during the various stages of the bill ample opportunity will be afforded for full discussion of the detailed proposals of the government. But I reiterate that I believe we should have at
this stage of the resolution a full statement from the Prime Minister in reply to the various questions I have asked.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: In these my first remarks in this house I want to thank all hon. members for the very warm welcome which was accorded me on the occasion of my introduction. I want also to thank the many members of parties other than my own for the assistance they have given me in the first few days of my presence here, assistance which helped to make my first days here much more pleasurable and less terrifying than they otherwise would have been.
I wish to make a few remarks on the resolution now before the house. I want to make these remarks now because, as hon. members know, I was absent, not being a member of the house, at the time the plebiscite was so fully discussed in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
During our recent campaign in York South the question of conscription of man-power for overseas service and of the plebiscite became a vital issue. My opponent in that campaign, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, went to bat first with a radio broadcast that concerned itself almost entirely with the question of conscription for overseas service. That was followed next day by the full-page advertisement of the total war committee. In that advertisement there were many definite references to conscription for overseas service, but in only one phrase in one line of that page was there anything definite about conscription of anything other than man-power. We, in our campaign, countered that move of our opponents by insisting that conscription of man-power for overseas service was only one phase, and not by any means the most important phase, of a total war effort. One issue that we kept before the electors coh-stantly was the need for the mobilization of everything necessary to win the war. From my experience in that campaign I am confident that the people of York South and-if they are representative, as I think they are, of the rest of Canada-the people of Canada will not by any means be satisfied with conscription of man-power only. Judging by letters which I have received both during my campaign and since the election from every province in Canada, from Liberals and Conservatives of long standing as well as from members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, from office workers, professional men and women, labourers and farmers, labour organizations, and numerous other organizations, I am quite confident that this country is to-day ready for a much greater and much

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Noseworthy
more far-reaching war effort than anything that this government has undertaken or even envisioned.
During the latter weeks of our campaign I was constantly questioned regarding my stand on the plebiscite issue. My opponent chose, as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in this house has chosen, to oppose the taking of the plebiscite. At no time during the campaign did I take occasion to criticize the action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his associates for the taking of that plebiscite. Nor did I find at anv time in that constituency, apart from the pro-conscriptionist press, any great indignation against the taking of the plebiscite. I found no such indignation expressed among the rank and file of the voters as I have heard expressed in this house by the leader of the official opposition. The people of York South-and I think they are representative of the people of Canada- are not nearly as much astounded at the phenomenon of the Prime Minister keeping his pledge to the electors as the opposition in this house appears to be.
What these people are really concerned about, and what they really want, is that all parties and all members of all parties should devote their combined intelligence and their combined energy to getting on with the business of winning the war. That is the business foremost in the minds of the people of the constituency from which I have just come.
I am personally convinced that the Prime Minister should be relieved of his electoral pledge. Furthermore, I am convinced that the only decent course he can follow is to appeal to the people of the country as he has chosen to do. As a matter of fact, the feeling of the people of York South on that point was so clear that my opponent was obliged to dissociate himself from his party or from the pledge that his party had given in .the 1940 election that there would be no conscription introduced if they were in power, that statement having been given during the election campaign. There was no criticism then. As a matter of fact, my opponent was challenged with the question, "Had not his party and its erstwhile leader of that period given the same pledge to the paople of Canada?"
I should like to see a great and overwhelming majority given to the government on the plebiscite. I feel confident that the government will receive that majority provided they are prepared to give to the people of this country, before the plebiscite is taken, a pledge in some form that they propose to

embark upon a genuine all-out war effort that will include a much greater mobilization of wealth than anything yet undertaken.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why do hon. members on the government side not applaud that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Such a pledge to gain the confidence and support of the Canadian people should, in my opinion, envision also a bold policy for the mobilization of industry.
The only fear as to the plebiscite that I ever heard expressed among the electors of my constituency was that a favourable vote would give the government the right to conscript man-power for farm, factory and the armed forces-and that power, I agree, they should possess in this crisis-but that it would leave the government free to carry on its present policy, which I term a policy of appeasement, with regard to wealth and industry.
I have read in the press that my opposition in the York South by-election are drawing some comfort from the myth that that election was directed by the government from Ottawa. I am amused by the fact that the official opposition place such confidence in the efficiency of that government direction. I am amused that they can accept that myth as an explanation of their loss of five thousand Conservative votes in the working class areas of that riding. The Prime Minister and his associates must, I am sure, feel quite elated over this compliment paid them by the official opposition.
Quite seriously, Mr. Speaker, that is not the answer to what happened in York South. The only intelligent answer is that the people of that constituency want an honest-to-goodness, all-out war effort. They are serious-minded people. They are deeply concerned, as all Canadians are concerned, about the winning of the war. They want more than a conscription bill which will enable the government to send men wherever they choose to send them. The working-class people of this country have already shown that they are ready to endure any sacrifice required of them in order to win this war; but they are sufficiently intelligent to know that something more is needed to win the war than the conscription of men for overseas service. I am fearful of the results of the plebiscite unless a pledge in some form can be given to indicate what other steps the government proposes to take in addition to the conscription of man-power. If the government wants the workers and farmers to give it a blank cheque-and I do not borrow that word from the leader of the opposition- that will enable it to use our man-power as

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Tucker
the government sees fit, then you must first create in the minds of the people a confidence that such power will never be used to exploit the working-class people of this country in the interests of any powerful group. You must convince the people that there is to be a much greater degree of equality of sacrifice than anything that has prevailed up to the present. You must also give the people the assurance that all industry is to be utilized for the war, regardless of the demand for private profit.
I should like to call attention for a moment, on this point, to a few statements reported in the Ottawa Morning Journal of to-day, from the recent radio broadcast by Sir Stafford Cripps. Speaking to the people who are unable to enlist for service, he is reported as having said:
. . . that those who "for age or other reasons" could not give their lives for their country "owe an obligation of service and devotion to the last ounce of our strength and the last dollar of our wealth."
Later, speaking of the situation in England, he said:
Personal interests are being allowed to obtrude themselves where the country's interest should be supreme, selfishness and the desire for petty profits sometimes taking the place of that all-embracing patriotism which leads our young men and women to give their lives for their country and its cause.
Then, speaking to Canadians, he asked this question:
But have you considered whether you in your country have yet realized how total must be the effort it required if the axis is to be conquered?	.
These words. I feel, express the wish and desire of the great majority of the Canadian people to-day. I can assure this house that across this country there is a seething dissatisfaction regarding our war effort. Not only have I met with it in my own riding; I have found it in hundreds of letters that I have received from every province since my election. That dissatisfaction does not rest on the failure of the government to secure enlistment for active service. Much of that sort of dissatisfaction I feel has been engendered in Canada by a pro-conscriptionist press.
The real dissatisfaction which exists in the minds of the people and which is wide-spread throughout this country, is the feeling that industry has not yet been geared to a maximum production for war purposes. I am told, for instance, that although we are in our third year of war we are not producing a single aeroplane engine for use in the planes that are to be used to defend our shores. That may or may not be correct. If it is correct, then I say it is a deplorable and regrettable
situation. There are to-day hundreds of industrial plants in and around Toronto alone which could and should be utilized for war production but which are still producing consumer goods for profit. I have received complaints from workers "by the dozen", if I may use a famous phrase, that they are obliged by force of circumstances to "rest on their oars" in- the matter of war production. I am told that the present cost-plus profit system that prevails in some of our war industries does not give opportunity to the workers to put forth their maximum effort. Men and foremen from munition and war industry plants around Toronto came to me in numbers during the election campaign, complaining that they were sick and tired of being forced to loaf on the job of war production in which they were engaged. There is a situation which demands investigation and clearing up, before we shall convince the Canadian people that we are engaged in an all-out war effort. It is because I know that it is in this field of our war effort, particularly, that this discontent exists, that I urge the. government to give to the electors some knowledge of what steps it proposes to take for the mobilization of wealth and industry, before it asks the voters for a blank cheque for the mobilization of manpower.
Let me repeat that the government need have no fear of the plebiscite vote, provided it is prepared to adopt a bolder and much more far-reaching policy in regard to wealth and industry. The people of Canada to-day are clamouring loudly for bold government leadership, leadership whioh will give us the only policy worthy of our cause, a policy which will mobilize everything we have for the winning of the war.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended saying anything in the debate at this point, but there were some observations by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) which I felt called for some comment, before I see passage of the resolution.
Before dealing with the subject in hand, however, I should like to extend to the hon. member who last spoke my sincere congratulations upon the ability he has shown as a parliamentarian. Certainly one can see that his election means a distinct acquisition to the debating power of the house as a whole, and I am sure the party to which he belongs have every reason to feel great satisfaction at his accession to their group.
I hope I have misunderstood some of the words used by the Secretary of State in explaining the provisions of the measure. It seems to me that in Canada we have not gone as far
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Tucker

as we should have by this time in building up a distinct sense of Canadian nationality and citizenship. There has been far too much emphasis laid upon racial origin of people who have come to our country in past generations, and who have shown thedr desire to be good citizens. Indeed I think far too much emphasis has been laid upon the suggestion that we have two great races in Canada because, from what I can see, the French race in Canada is, after all, very closely related to the English race in Canada. I doubt very much whether we have in fact two distinct races in Canada, and it is my belief that we of those two races are closely united in racial origin. If we were to get away from that idea of thinking so much of racial origin, It would be better for Canada as a whole.
I hope, as I have said, that I misunderstood the Secretary of State when I thought I heard him say that any person resident in Canada whose racial origin was that of a country at war with Canada, and who was disfranchised by a law of any legislature in Canada, would not be permitted to vote on the plebiscite anywhere. I hope I am mistaken in my understanding, because I can see tremendous repercussions from such a provision in the law. We may know now what provisions there may be in the provincial laws; but, as I understand it, once we legislate that way, if at any time before the voting takes place any provincial legislature chooses to disfranchise the people whose racial origin is that of any country with which we are at war-no matter how long those people may have lived in Canada, or how many generations they may have lived here-they would be disfranchised by this particular section.
We should go very slowly when writing any such provision into the statutes of our country. I am prepared to trust the government of Canada, but I am not prepared to trust what any single legislature in Canada might do. driven on by some of the leadership which at times they have displayed. Just to show the danger of that kind of legislation, let me put this to the house: Let us suppose-and God forbid that it should happen-that before the voting takes place Hitler drives Vichy France to war against us. Let us suppose, further, that some legislature in Canada passes an act stipulating that no person of enemy origin shall have any right to vote on the plebiscite. Under such circumstances, in what position would this parliament be placed?
There is no suggestion as to how far back we should go, in tracing racial origin. Are we to go back one generation, two generations, five generations or ten? I protest against the division of Canadians into groups having certain racial origins.

There are in Canada many hundreds of thousands of people of German origin, who are just as loyal to Canada as any member of the house. What would happen if some legislature passed an act whereby a person of German origin were not permitted to vote? Under the explanation given by the Secretary of State those people, whose sons may be serving in the army, whose husbands may be in the army, would be disfranchised by an act of this parliament.
I do not wish it to be understood that I am becoming hysterical about such legislation, but I cannot help thinking about the tremendous amount of harm done in 1917 by similar legislation. People who were loyal citizens of Canada felt tremendously hurt when they were not permitted to exercise the ordinary duties and rights of citizenship at the time of the war-time election. Before the bill is placed before the house by a Liberal government, I urge that any discrimination on racial grounds should be stricken from it.
I know of dozens of people within my own constituency who undoubtedly are of German racial origin, and who are serving in the armed forces of this dominion. Are we to say that their fathers or their brothers are not to have the right to vote, the same as any other person in the country? I know there are many people who will vote either in favour of or against the plebiscite, when the time comes, who will know there will be no chance of their being conscripted. Why make any discrimination on racial grounds? If a man is a good citizen of Canada, if he has done no harm, and if he is expected to discharge the obligations of citizenship, then I submit he should be given all the rights connected therewith. Under the National Resources Mobilization Act there is no discrimination as to racial origin. Young men of German origin are expected to serve their country the same as people of other origins. Thank God that, so far as that measure was concerned, there was no discrimination against people of different racial origins. If they are good Canadians, we treat them as such.
In the present instance are we to say to people of German origin, "Yes, you are' good citizens; we expect you to defend the country; we expect you to obey the call and to offer your lives, if necessary, in its defence; but we will not give you the right to vote on a problem like this." I suggest that our government should not introduce an act which might do such a thing.
Then there is the vexed question respecting conscientious objectors-a most difficult question. But I know, too, that many of our Mennonite groups have suggested to the government that they are quite ready to enter

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
the armed services, provided they are permitted to do non-combatant work. They are willing to go into the ambulance service, the hospital service, labour battalions and so on. as long as they will not have to go against their conscientious beliefs and actually fight or kill their fellowmen. The attitude has been taken that there is no such thing as a non-combatant in this war and that, therefore, unless a man is willing to go and kill his fellowmen, he shall not be permitted to enter the armed forces. He cannot go and be a stretcher-bearer or do hospital work; he must go on the basis of being prepared to do anything he is ordered to do in the way of killing.
In passing I suggest, with all deference to our own military leaders, that this has not been the attitude of the great President of the United States. I saw myself an order which he signed, that conscientious objectors who are willing to serve their country, could do so in non-combatant branches of the armed services of the United States. I saw a copy of an order signed by the chief of staff of the United States stating what branches these conscientious objectors would be able to serve in. But we are saying that conscientious objectors who are willing to go into the armed services of the crown and risk their lives in those armed services, just because they are not wilLing to go in on terms whereby they may be required to fight and kill, shall not have the right to vote on this question. I know dozens of good young friends of mine, who belong to the Mennonite faith, who have gone into Red Cross work in the army, trusting that they will not be asked to bear arms. Many have gone into the Royal Canadian Air Force. By this very measure-and I ask every member of the house to consider what we are doing-the relatives of these young men will be prevented from voting unless they say they are ready to go into the armed forces and be prepared to go and kill, against their religious beliefs.
The reason why I have spoken at this particular stage is that I want the government to reconsider the question of introducing a bill with any provisions like that in it. I call back to memory the shades of great leaders of Liberalism who fought against similar provisions in the War-time Elections Act of 1917. I cannot begin to echo, with anything like their eloquence, the sentiments which they voiced in support of the principle that when you give a man citizenship you should not deprive him of the rights of citizenship. I hold ini my hand the Hansard in which those great speeches were made, and I ask this government in all sincerity, and
in the hope that it will not embarrass them in any way, that before they introduce in the house a bill embodying any such provision, they reconsider the matter and refrain from taking a step which I think, on more mature consideration, and especially in the light of the teachings of Liberalism, they would consider inconsistent with those great teachings.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to say a few words on the resolution before it passes, but before I refer to the resolution itself, may I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworbhy) who took his seat in the house for the first time on Wednesday last.
I think he made a good job of his speech, and I do not believe he will need assistance from others so far as his work in this house is concerned. He seems quite able to take care of himself.
As regards the general principle of going to the country on a plebiscite, we have no objection when it involves a matter of policy or principle; but I certainly have an objection to this particular plebiscite because it is most evasive, and I cannot see any good result that will come from it. I have heard over and over again in this house the statement that the government was asking to be released from its commitment. That is not right. The government is not asking to be released from a commitment. Let us see what it asks? The plebiscite is worded thus:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
That is an entirely different matter. It is asking people if they are in favour of releasing the government; but the government is not asking to be released. There is quite a distinction there, a great difference. It simply puts the government in this position, that if the people express their desire of releasing the government from its commitments, the government can sit right down and do nothing. It is not asking to be released, and in that regard the government is perfectly within its rights to go on and do exactly as it has done in the past. I spoke on this particular question before, and it is my considered opinion that the government does not intend to change its policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us that in his speech when he first spoke in this house. I referred to the remarks of the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe; I also referred to the remarks of the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). When the late Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Justice, was
"94	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
speaking in this house, he told the people of Quebec and the members of the house, in no uncertain terms, that there would never, never, never be conscription; and the Minister of Public Works was one of those to whom he referred. The hon. gentleman is sitting in his place now and I ask him to correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Lapointe said: "I speak for Mr. Cardin and I speak for Mr. Power; we will leave the government before there will be any conscription put into effect in this dominion."
I should like to hear the Minister of Public Works contradict that statement if I am wrong. I sincerely believe I am right in this. In my opinion it is a wrong attitude for the government to take, and that is why I will oppose this particular plebiscite. If they can convince me that they really intend to do something on this thing, then it is an entirely different matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the hon. member object to putting the government in a position where it could do something if it considered it necessary?


Charles Edward Johnston: The government, under the mobilization act, can do anything it likes. If the question were put in a positive way on this plebiscite, then there would be some sense in it. But the government is definitely not doing that. It will be recalled that when I was speaking before, I pointed out that there were two sides to the question of the plebiscite-one was meant for the French-speaking people of Quebec and the other for the English-speaking people of the other provinces. I do not think anything could be done that would create greater disunity in the country than that very thing. If the French people of Quebec and the Englishspeaking people of the rest of Canada were given clearly to understand our situation, clearly to understand that this government intended to go all-out, that it intended to mobilize completely finance and material resources, right to the last man and the last dollar, I believe that the people of Quebec- because I have spoken in that province many times, and I know them-would agree for an all-out war effort.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have not made much impression.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, you have not made such a hot impression either. I am sure that the people of Quebec would be just as enthusiastically behind an all-out war effort as those of any other province. I do not blame the people of Quebec for being a little cautious as to the promises which this
TMr. C. E. Johnston.]
government has given, because the rest of us elsewhere in Canada have sound reasons for being a little suspicious of its promises.
This whole question is not one which has come up overnight. When I hear some hon. members speaking in this chamber I am almost led to believe that in their opinion this issue has risen rather rapidly. Let us make no mistake; this is a political trick; it was begun in 1940; and I am amazed at the shortness of the memory of some hon. members, who cannot even think back to 1939. I well recall the occasion in this house when the party with which I am associated asked for an all-out war effort. Some of us were told that we were committing political suicide, and in fact we lost seven of our members.


Ernest George Hansell: But we were right.


Charles Edward Johnston: We were
right, yes, and every member in this house realizes it now. We had to take a lot of abuse because of our stand on behalf of the unity of Canada. Then this question came up in 1940, when the issue of conscription of man-power was fought on every political platform. We of this group advocated first of all a complete mobilization-conscription, if you like-of the financial institutions, so that we would be able, if I may use the Prime Minister's own words, to issue currency and credit in terms of public need. But when we put that resolution before the house everyone outside our party voted against it. Those who did so may have been sincere, and I am not going to say they were not, but I do affirm that it showed a decided lack of leadership in that critical time, in 1940, when the issue was being discussed.
The government is now trying to have the people say whether they wish to release it, but the government is not asking for release. To my mind it is another political trick, and shows very poor leadership; nothing indeed is more calculated to disunite the country. If the government has misjudged the necessities of the case, and can do nothing better than ask the people if they would like to release it, I say we have no time for such fooling around as that. If the Prime Minister, with all. due respect to his ability as a leader, has not sufficient vision, foresight and leadership to conduct Canada through this most critical time in its history, then I humbly say to you, Mr. Speaker, that he should resign and make way for someone else who can. We know that a man is not necessarily to be blamed for mistakes he may make, but certainly you cannot expect a country to put its trust in a person who continually makes mistakes, and this government is notorious for the mistakes it has

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
made since this war broke out. I do not believe there is another government in the whole world which has made such colossal mistakes as this particular government has.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Alberta
government.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell the hon. member that no government in any province has done more for this war effort than the government of Alberta. I challenge hon. members to cite one instance wherein that government has not given wholehearted support to the war effort of the dominion.


Ernest George Hansell: It bought a million dollars' worth of war bonds the other day.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What about Alberta's
debt to the city of Ottawa!


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me say to the hon. member that if he wants me to refer back to some of the remarks he made in 1939, I shall do so with pleasure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Do you want to go ahead now?


Charles Edward Johnston: It might be a little embarrassing to the hon. member, but it would be a pleasure to do it. When this question of unity comes up, some hon. members should, I think, sit rather quietly in their seats; the less said, the less they will have to account for.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What a man!


Charles Edward Johnston: What a member! I believe this country will have to adopt the principles which we have advocated. I challenge anyone to say that we were wrong in the stand we took in 1939, let him rise in his place now and say that we should not have an all-out war effort, with total conscription of finance and material resources before there is any further conscription of man-power. I should like to see the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago make his stand with regard to that.


Mr. FAIR:: He won't. He sits.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is all he has done since this session began.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What wonderful members you have over there!


Charles Edward Johnston: At least we do not have to go back on the promises we made in 1939.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Bring your social dividend along.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes. The people will get that, too. But the thing with
which we are primarily concerned., and have been ever since this war started., is an all-out war effort. We have not been concerned so much with political tricks as my hon. friends across the floor who are interrupting just now. That is the sort of thing which creates disunity. It leads to the sort of disorganization of which we have evidence in the laying off of five hundred men from an Ottawa plant. Were we wrong when we asked for complete mobilization of the natural and industrial resources of this country? All over Canada industrial capacity and industrial workers are standing idle, although those concerned are only too anxious to get to work. Just the day before yesterday I got a letter from an important executive of one of the aircraft factories. The situation he pointed out to me is appalling. He stated that in his factory a large number of men were laid off. Nearly all of them were expert mechanics, who have been working on the production of war supplies for the last year or two. It was pointed out to me that these men are now either enlisting in the army or seeking other jobs, and that when this company is asked to return to full production it will not be able to do so, because it will not have the experienced men. Yet we are supposed to be engaged in an all-out war effort. One of our greatest deficiencies is in the matter of production. I heard the Prime Minister say the other day that we shall probably not be permitted to discuss this subject in the secret session. Yet to me it is a matter of more concern than any other. I am not going to question .the judgment of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) as to whether Bren guns should be sent to Singapore, or to Australia, or should be kept here. He is a military man, and in that I will accept his judgment. But the thing I am concerned about is this: Let us get the guns made. To say that we are manufacturing 4,500 Bren guns a month is not the point at all, because if we are manufacturing 4.500 Bren guns a month and we can bring that production up to 9,000 or 90,000 Bren guns a month, or whatever the figure may be-if we can double the present output, that is what we should be doing. If we are building a certain number of corvettes within a given time, and we could with proper organization build twice that number within the same time, that is what we should be doing.


Ernest George Hansell: Or even one more.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, as my hon. friend the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) says, if we could put out even one more a month, that is what we should be doing. Then we would at least be endeavouring to have an all-out war effort. Can you
796	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Johnson (Bow RiverJ
envisage, Mr. Speaker, the government telling us that they do not even now know how many factories are working full-time? I think it is unpardonable that a government should be in such a position after almost three years of war organization, that they do not know yet how many factories are working full-time and how many are working only part-time. That is the greatest criticism I have to offer of the government at the moment.
In submitting the plebiscite, I cannot see why the government does not make it a positive question rather than a negative one. Certainly they should seek direction, and direct direction, from the people, so that the people will know without question what is going to happen. Why in the world cannot the government be honest about this matter and say to the people: We want you to release us from this pledge so that we can have conscription for overseas if necessary? But that has never been said yet. I have not found it in the Prime Minister's address. The question submitted seems to evade that. Or, if we are not going to have conscription, let us be honest and say so. I do not think there is any danger of frightening the people to such an extent that they are going to become panicky and run away from the enemy if we tell them the truth. I do not mean that they should be told military secrets such as the transport of troops and matters of that kind. But tell them the exact situation in other matters and you will find out that the people are right behind you. They are behind you now, pushing so hard that you do not know where to go. That is the trouble-they are pushing you too much.


Mr. GRANT:: Did you tell the people the truth the last time?


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not make any mistake about that.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The hon. member did not answer my question.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the hon. member wants to speak, he should rise in his place and speak when I am through, and we will analyse his speech.
I do not think this is any time to be fooling around with this plebiscite. I believe we could spend our time much more usefully in organizing our war effort. Just imagine, there are thousands of unemployed right across Canada! In every province of this dominion there are hundreds and hundreds of unemployed. I think that is a shame. These people want to work. It is not a case of their trying to evade responsibility. They are coming to the government, and to industry to
fMr. C. E. Johnston.]
enlist in the war effort, but they are being turned away. I think that is a great waste of man-hours, a great waste of time.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wasting plenty now.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are not doing so hot either. If some of those fellows-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Hon. members.


Charles Edward Johnston: If some off those hon. members would rise in their places and say what they had to say in 1939, it would be interesting to hear it to-day.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the plebiscite is a waste of money at this time. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that it would cost about one and a half million dollars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) said one and a half million dollars and I questioned that.


Charles Edward Johnston: And I do-not know whether he means that amount.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can assure the hon. member that I do mean it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure that the minister has made an estimate and tried to be as reasonable as he could, but if we get this plebiscite taken for a million and a half dollars, I think the Secretary of State will be the most surprised man in the house. We do not need to spend a great deal of money in taking this vote. Why should we not use the services of the different organizations set up all over Canada to take this vote? There is the teachers' organization, for example, which offered to work gratis in the national registration, and there is a board of trade in every town across the country. Municipal councils could also be of assistance in this work. Chambers of commerce and various other organizations would be only too willing to help.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There would be no work for any friends then.


Charles Edward Johnston: You cannot start out by paying some officials a nice fat salary and then expect others to work for nothing. They just won't do it. If this is a political dodge to build up a political party, that is a sad state of affairs at this particular time.
I think the plebiscite is not necessary. I, have stated my objections to it, and therefore I am now going to move that the Speaker do-

Plebiscite Act-Point oj Order
not now leave the chair and that the house do now consider the following amendment to the resolution:
That all the words after "papers" in the fifth line of this resolution be struck out and the following be added: Be it further resolved that the said aet be so designed as to,
First, provide that all plebiscites be taken without expense to the dominion treasury, except such expenditures required for necessary printing.
Second, provide that definite direction be sought from the people on all national issues submitted to them under the terms and provisions of this proposed Plebiscite Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate moment at which to raise a point of order which has been in my mind in the course of this debate. I direct the attention of the house to the fact that the present motion is one necessitated by the fact that a bill is about to be introduced which will place a charge upon the public revenue. Being a bill of that nature it is recommended to the house in the first instance by His Excellency the Governor General. Being recommended by his excellency in the form in which it appears, the motion cannot be amended. That is the first point I wish to make, namely, that the amendment is entirely out of order for the reason given.
Not being capable of amendment, it is, I think, sound constitutional procedure that the motion should not be debatable. Debate on a motion of this nature, unless there is some other governing factor, is, or ought to be, out of order at the present time.
I would direct the attention of hon. members to standing order 60 on page 161 of Beauchesne:
Motion imposing public aid or charge.
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
Standing order 60 certainly would rule out the debate that has thus far taken place upon this resolution, and it illustrates in the best manner possible why a rule of this kind should be construed literally. Most of the discussion that has taken place thus far I think I am right in saying has been a repetition of what took place in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not think there has been a single point raised in the speeches thus far made on this matter which was not raised in one form or another in the debate on the address.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should not like to agree to that. I had some new matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I will except from that general statement some of the things my hon. friend has said. But he and I alike I think are interested in seeing that the rules of the house are strictly construed, and particularly those placed there with a view to expediting the business of parliament. There is the strongest of reasons in connection with the very matter we are debating at the moment, namely, the wording of a plebiscite, why the matter should be decided by this house as quickly as possible. We have been told over and over again in the course of the debate that every moment's delay in getting the plebiscite before the people may occasion great concern at the end and is to be very much regretted. There will be an opportunity to debate all phases of the plebiscite question on the bill when it is before the house, and there will be opportunity when the resolution has been passed to ask questions on the resolution when the house is in committee of the whole. I do submit that the time to expect answers to questions on a resolution of this kind is not in the course of debate on the resolution itself, but only when the resolution is before the committee of the whole house.
I raise the point at this stage because, while I am free to say that I think the house in past years has frequently ignored this standing order, there has come to be almost a custom, when a motion of the kind preceding a money bill is introduced, of having a debate on the resolution itself. I think the intention of the rule was to avoid anything of the kind; that the whole purpose of a resolution is to secure time for hon. members to see the importance of the matter to be dealt with involving expenditure of public moneys, and to be afforded opportunity in committee to raise questions and receive answers before the bill is introduced. But the debate on the subject of the bill should take place on the bill itself rather than on a resolution preceding its introduction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister has raised two questions under his point of order with respect to the legality of the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). With respect to the first point I am in agreement, inasmuch as the bill is a money bill. On that I shall not elaborate. But on the second point I take distinct issue with the Prime Minister. He is reading into standing order 60 something that is not there. Unless he reads something into it that is not there, there is no point or force in his argument. I am astonished that the question has been raised here to-day, because I cannot recall a point of order like this having been taken on a money resolution pre-
Plebiscite Act-Point of Order

ceding a bill in the last twenty years. I should be astonished if the Prime Minister can find a single precedent. Certainly there is nothing in the standing order which says there shall be no debate. What it says is that:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon . . .
That is, you cannot enter upon it without notice from the governor general, as I understand. the implications of that. But that having been given, then the motion is moved and debate ensues thereon. The question of referring it to the committee follows after that debate has taken place and the motion carried.
It is a debatable motion; it cannot be anything else. Surely for the last twenty years, and I should think a long time before that, this house has not been going wrong on a matter of this kind.
I think the first point taken is a proper point of order and this amendment must fail on that ground, but certainly not on the second ground. I would be astonished if that were the proper interpretation of the rule. You cannot construe a statute strictly by reading something into it, and a rule of the House of Commons is by analogy in the nature of a statute. On the other hand I think it ought to be construed liberally, and certainly this debate is in order and should go on.
I understand, of course, that that is not the primary reason for the Prime Minister rising at this time; he has risen because of the intervention of this proposed amendment. I think he is right on his first ground, but on the second ground I most respectfully dissent from him.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I add a word in support of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said? In reference to standing order 60, paragraph 542 is quoted from the British house standing orders, and I think is germane to the point at issue. That paragraph reads as follows;
If any motion be made i<n the house for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund, or out of money to be provided by parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house shall think fit to appoint. . . .
All that paragraph says, I think, and what is also said in standing order 60, is that the discussion shall not be presently entered upon; but it does not say that there shall be no debate. Surely we are allowed to debate resolutions brought up in this house. Always
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.)
since I have been here debate has been allowed, and I am satisfied that a correct reading of standing order 60 and the supporting paragraphs do not imply that there shall be no debate on a resolution except in committee. It merely says there shall be none at the time it is introduced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if other hon. members have concluded what they wish to say, I should like to direct attention to the point just raised by my hon. friend. I noticed that both he and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) did not read the whole order, but stopped short at the early part of it. Let me read standing order 60 again;
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people-
That is what this present motion is.
-the consideration aind debate thereof may not be presently entered upon-
As I understand the English language that means that the house cannot at that time, when that motion is introduced, begin to discuss it; that it is not debatable.
-but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint

Then see what follows:
-and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
The only thing that is debatable at the moment is whether the house should go into committee to consider the resolution. That is all. The resolution is considered in committee, where any questions may be asked; but the motion itself is not debatable and cannot be amended, for the reasons mentioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the consent of the house I should like to add just one word. I think some regard has to be given the punctuation of this order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an important factor in construing it. My hon. friend may laugh, but he laughs out of ignorance, not out of wisdom; let me tell him that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you very much. May I say I think I know the rules as well as my hon. friend knows them.	-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably the hon. gentleman knows them better than I do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I also point out to my hon. friend that he cannot know the rules, or he would know that the word "ignorance" is not parliamentary.

Plebiscite Act-Speaker's Ruling


Richard Burpee Hanson: If my hon. friend does not like that word, I will withdraw it, because I would not hurt his feelings for a moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are trying to be
agreeable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if all the chatter is not over, or if my hon. friends do not want to hear me, I will sit down. I *should like to point out that the punctuation is important. There is a semicolon before the last clause; and if you read the first part of this clause it presupposes a debate before going into committee. I think that is a fair interpretation of this order. If we are right to-day, we are making a little parliamentary history, but I submit that we cannot have been wrong for twenty years, with much better students of the rule than I am, and students at least as good as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may say one word, in giving notice of this motion the Secretary of State moves that this house, at its next sitting, shall resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the resolution standing in his name on the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I am just analysing the significance of this for the benefit of my hon. friend. Then to-day we are dealing with that resolution, which received the consent of the house when my hon. friend the Secretary of State moved the antecedent or preliminary notice the other day in this house; and the point before us now is not the merits or demerits of the resolution itself. The only point is whether this house shall immediately and forthwith go into committee to consider the resolution of which notice was given by the Secretary of State.


Mr. STIRLING:: On which debate has arisen.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Pensions and National Health. The Prime Minister said that the question was whether we should go into committee on the resolution. How are we going to debate whether we shall go into committee on the resolution if we arr not allowed to debate the resolution itself?


Georges Parent: Having heard the viewpoints of so many experienced parliamentarians, I think the matter is of sufficient importance to merit further consideration, and at eight o'clock I will give a ruling.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Georges Parent: Plebiscite Act-Speaker's Ruling
a vote of a sum Of money, and is used as in the first column of the estimates now before the house.
It is clear, therefore, that the resolution must be transmitted to the committee of the whole in the terms recommended to the house by the message of the governor general, and the amendment proposed is therefore out of order; and I so rule.
The next question is that raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who quoted standing order 60 and submitted that the resolution before the house is not debatable. With this standing order, however, must be read standing order 38, which provides, inter alia:
(1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion
(a) standing on the order of proceedings for the day.
The resolution is on the order of proceedings for the day. I would point out that standing order 60 was passed in 1867, while standing order 38 was passed on March 22, 1927. In other words, standing order 38 is remedial to standing order 60, and I must conclude that standing order 38 must rule, and decide that the resolution before the house is debatable.
What extent may be allowed in the debate is a much more difficult problem. All that is asked of the house is that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
The debate, therefore, must be directed to the negative of that motion, that the resolution should not be submitted to the committee of the whole, for, as I have pointed out, no amendment at this stage can be in order.
In my judgment the debate should be general, with no reference to details, all of which can be discussed in committee, and on the bill which follows the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the ohair.


Mr.   Fournier. Hull@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest George Hansell: No; I do not believe the resolution should carry quite so soon. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister in this connection.
First, we have been very much concerned with respect to the amount of money 'the plebiscite may cost. Could the minister give a break-down of the suggested amount of 81,500,000? If he can give a break-down, will he tell us to what extent he thinks it will be possible to obtain voluntary help in taking the plebiscite?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Chairman, I am having prepared by the chief electoral officer a definite break-down of the estimated cost of taking the plebiscite. The figure I gave on Friday, that of 81,500,000, was a general approximation. At that time I said that the government would welcome such voluntary effort as would be applied to it, and such voluntary effort would of course reduce the cost. For budgeting purposes, however, it is thought unwise to make an estimate of the amount of voluntary work which will be applied to the taking of the plebiscite. For that reason it was deemed desirable to give a maximum figure; such amount of work as is done voluntarily will of course effect a reduction in such figure.
When we are in committee on the bill I shall be glad to give a definite break-down of the approximate cost.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Will the returning
officers be appointed on a patronage basis, as is done at the time of general elections?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would have no objection bo answering that question, but I believe it would be more properly asked when we are in committee on the bill. The intention is that the returning officers appointed under the 1938 election act will continue-unless under the provisions of that act they are changed. While I have no objection to giving the committee all available information, I aim of opinion that these matters relate to detail and might better be discussed when the house is in committee on the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I had some further questions, but I shall leave them until the bill is in committee.
Resolution reported, read -the second time and concurred in. Mr. McLarty thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT


[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF * COMMITTEE
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the following resolution:
That a select committee be set up to which shall be referred all matters relating to the settlement of veterans of the present war on the land in Canada; amd

City oj Ottawa Agreement
That the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses for evidence; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house; and to report from time to time; and
That the committee shall consist of Messrs. Blanchette, Dupuis, Hatfield, Macdonald (Brantford), Macdonald (Halifax), MacKenzie (Aeepawa), Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), McLean (Simeoe East), MacMillan, Quelch, Koss (bouris), Senn, Sissons, Tucker, Wright.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Might I ask if it is the intention of the government to have the proceedings of this committee printed or merely a memorandum kept of the daily proceedings?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the intention, subject to the will of the committee itself, to have the proceedings printed and given to every member of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Including
the evidence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, certainly, the same as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to make provision for the settlement on the land of veterans of the present war, to prescribe the terms of such settlement and to grant a measure of financial assistance to such settlers, and further for the appointment of a director, of officers and other employees in connection therewith.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1942.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this is the resolution preceding the introduction of a bill for payment to the city of Ottawa of the sum of $100,000 as the result of an agreement which was reached between the city of Ottawa and the federal government a number of years ago in settlement of claims which had been put forward by the city for compensation for loss of revenue on properties which the federal government had acquired, and which left the city of Ottawa short of a certain amount of tax revenue. The claim of the city of Ottawa, as I stated last year and the house will remember, was for a very much larger amount than this, but as a result of discussions between the Department of Public Works and representatives of the city of Ottawa an agreement was reached that all parties concerned would be satisfied with a payment by the federal government to the city of Ottawa of $100,000 a year. This agreement has been renewed, if my memory serves me aright, for ten or fifteen years. I might add that representations have been made by the city of Ottawa that we should increase the amount, but in view of the war it was thought advisable to leave the situation as it is and not to undertake negotiations for a new agreement in place of the original agreement authorized in 1920 at $75,000 and which ran from July 1, 1919, to July 1, 1924, was renewed for one year to 1925, renewed for a period of five years from 1925 to 1930 at $100,000, and has been renewed year by year since 1930 at $100,000.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Has the minister not taken into consideration the vast expansion in the services rendered by the city of Ottawa and the large number of buildings and properties taken over by the federal government, which make a very great change indeed in the services rendered by the city to the government? I think this agreement was first entered into approximately twenty years ago, when the services rendered by the city of Ottawa to the dominion government, and the -city property acquired by the government were very much less than now. The situation has changed vastly since the agreement was first entered into, and in fact within the last year or two the water supply situation, in view of the services rendered by the city of Ottawa, is critical, calling for an expansion of the water service. It is a matter that should be given much more than perfunctory consideration in order that an equitable agreement may be arrived at between the dominion government and the city of Ottawa in view of the revenue-producing properties to the city which

City of Ottawa Agreement

have been taken over by the government and the very much greater services rendered by the corporation. In view of these factors I think it would only be fair to the city of Ottawa that serious consideration be given - by the federal government to making an equitable adjustment at this time. The excuse that we are at war and that economy is demanded surely does not apply to a situation such as prevails in this capital city of Canada. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to give the committee a few more particulars, showing the changes between the services rendered twenty or twenty-five years ago when this agreement was first entered into, and the services rendered to-day.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that the situation has somewhat changed, but some people might argue that it has changed on both sides. I am not prepared at the moment to enter into any argument along that line.
So far as the water service is concerned, I may say for the information of the committee that the federal government pays for all the water consumed in the federal public buildings in addition to the amount allowed under this agreement. The main consideration, if I remember correctly, which was in the minds of those making recommendations on behalf of the city of Ottawa was that the city was losing a large amount of taxation which had formerly been imposed on the properties taken over by the federal government. It was this loss of revenue which was the main consideration presented on behalf of the city, although there were other minor factors. Taking everything into consideration, however, I think it is fair that we should wait until the war is over before making an adjustment in the light of all the circumstances. I promise my hon. friend that I shall have no objection to treating the city of Ottawa as well as circumstances will permit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I intended to make some remarks, not at this stage of the proceedings, but possibly on the second reading of the bill, in connection with this matter. They will relate particularly to the loss which the city of Ottawa has sustained by reason of the tremendous inroads which have been made on the city assessment roll because of the large amount of property which has been taken over by the government, by expropriation and by purchase, since the war began, and, I may say, before that. It would be well if the minister in the meantime would get some data on just what this amounts to, and if he would also arrange to tell the committee and the house what

sums the government pays to the corporation of the city of Ottawa in addition to this sum of 8100,000.
The minister has spoken about the amount of water used in the public buildings. I think that what my colleague had to say was about the increased water supply which is necessary for fire protection in the city, due to the erection on Wellington street of a number of very inflammable wooden buildings, which constitute, in my judgment, a serious fire hazard and a menace to the safety of the city. I am not criticizing the government for having built wooden buildings there; everything had to be done hastily. The Department of Munitions and Supply grew up overnight, as it were, and had to have accommodation, and no doubt wooden accommodation was the easiest and most quickly available method. Nevertheless, it constitutes a grave fire hazard to the city of Ottawa.
But that is not the main factor to which, I think, he should direct his attention; it is the direct loss sustained by the city treasury by reason of such buildings as, let us say, the Jackson building, which has been expropriated by the government, and which, as I understand the law, automatically comes off the assessment roll; and by the expropriation of the Brading brewery building at the lower end of Wellington street. I do not suggest that the city of Ottawa has lost a great deal on the assessment roll by reason of the Brading property being taken over, because the assessment on the building, land, and appurtenances was very moderate compared with the sum this government paid. I know the answer will be that that was an exchequer court judgment. I wonder whether hon. members know just how the amount was arrived at. I believe the sum paid was. $550,000 on the basis of the exchequer court award. But it was a sham battle; the government offered in the expropriation proceedings to pay the $550,000 odd; the company in filing its defence accepted the offer, and there never was a jot or tittle of evidence taken to support the claim, one way or the other. It was a cloak behind which the government may shelter itself if it desires to justify the payment of so huge a sum for-what shall I term it?-that hole in the ground down there on Wellington street. I am going to have something more to say about that later on. It ought to have been said long ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon. friend is a little too severe, and that when the facts are brought before the committee of the house the picture will not be so black as he painted it a moment ago.

Precious Metals Marking Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Black
enough.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will be established that the price offered by the federal government was tendered after three firms of competent and reliable valuators had passed on the property and had given the public works department the necessary information as to the real value of the property.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the assessed value?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret very much that at the moment I am not in a position to say, but I promise my hon. friend that when we reach the second reading of the bill I shall have all the particulars before me, and we can clear up that situation as well as any other relating to properties which have been taken over by the federal government since the beginning of the war.


George Russell Boucher: I do not think the Minister of Public Works is quite fair to the city of Ottawa as far as the statement about water is concerned. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, the amount of water [DOT] supplied by the city for fire protection, the police protection, and other services rendered by Ottawa have increased many ways by virtue of the new additions to government-held property and government services. All these matters are of immense importance to the taxpayers of the city of Ottawa, and should, I believe, be given immediate consideration, without having the matter continued ad infinitum, or for years and years, without some proper basis of adjustment as between the dominion government and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.


Mr. McIVOR:: Why is it that, when you
want to rent a house or an apartment in the city of Ottawa, you can get neither a house nor an apartment? Has not this greatly increased demand come about because of the war activities which centre in Ottawa, and if the city are losing in one way, are they not gaining in another? I know that in the great city of Fort William we do not derive a cent of taxes from the public buildings which are located there. I think the government has treated the city of Ottawa well. Go to the front of this building and look at the lighting we have. I know there is a black-out but the other night, when I saw a lady tripping over her feet, I thought to myself, when this-subject comes up we should ask to have lights over these steps; it would not cost very much.
As I have said, Ottawa is enjoying a good deal of compensation; every last house is
[DOT]44561-SIJ
rented. I think Ottawa should provide better accommodation for the population which is flowing into the city.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO GOLD CONTENT OF MANUFACTURED ARTICLES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, an act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have not even seen this bill, and I think that before the second reading is carried there should be some slight explanation of it by the minister. This Precious Metals Marking Act deals with a very technical subject. I remember having made some years ago a study of it, and I recall further that when the late member for Renfrew South was minister, he undertook to amend this bill, and he got into a heap of trouble over the technicalities of it. Would the. minister say what is the nature of the amendment? I have not had a chance to read the bill.


James Angus MacKinnon: I outlined the purpose of the bill on its introduction. It is only a small matter, the object being to bring into line with United States regulations, as imposed by the bureau of standards, with regard to the marking of precious metals, the Precious Metals Marking Act of Canada. A large part of the spectacle-ware used in Canada is imported from the United States, and complications have arisen owing to the fact that a slightly different requirement is called for in the imported article compared with the domestic product. At the request of the jewellers' association of Canada, comprising all manufacturers as well as retailers, and with only one dissenting voice, this legislation is being introduced to make uniform the regulations so that there will be no conflict in the checking that is done by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What will be the effect from the consumer's point of view? The difference between 10 per cent and 5 per
Precious Metals Marking Act

cent represents a considerable leeway. Is there a possibility of there being less gold in the alloy?


Mr.   MacICINNON@Edmonton West: The effect is trifling. As regards the protection of the general public, there will be no difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are doubling the leeway. Will it have an effect on the cost of spectacles?


Mr.   MacICINNON@Edmonton West: No effect at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-"Gold." "Gold filled."
Ernest George Hansell: I am not a goldsmith, and I do not understand very much of the discussion that has gone on so far; but while the minister may say that the effect upon the consumer is trifling, it does seem to me that if the consumer is purchasing a certain article of gold, or containing gold, he may pay just the same price for a less valuable product. If I am right in that, I should like to know. What is the effect of the price ceiling on such commodities? I was in a furniture store the other day talking to the salesman, and he asked me if I wanted a nice chesterfield. He said, "You had better buy now." I said that I did not see what difference it made whether I bought then or six months from now, because the price would be just the same. I must admit that in that conversation I was patting the government on the back a little. He replied, "Don't fool yourself there. In six months' time you may come back and pay the same price, but it will not be the same chesterfield." Are we to understand that something like that may result from a bill of this kind? It is all very well to say that it is only trivial; but if a person buys an article for $100 and gets something with less gold in it than he thinks he is getting, it is the thin end of the wedge to encourage the giving of less value for the same money, even though there is a price ceiling. I wish the minister would make a statement along that line.


James Angus MacKinnon: Possibly the hon. member did not follow my statement. When I said the matter was trifling I was referring to spectacleware, there being only a slight difference in the gold content of the Canadian article in comparison with the gold content of the imported commodity. About 75 per cent of the spectacleware affected, used in Canada, is imported from the United States.


Ernest George Hansell: It applies only to
spectacles?


James Angus MacKinnon: Just spectacles.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or two ago my hon. friend, referring to Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways, raised some objection to going on with the bill until he had a statement from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin). I believe the minister is in a position to make a statement at the moment. Whether he is ready to proceed with the bill, I cannot say.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have an idea that this bill should not be proceeded with until we get the accounts of the railways, and I would ask the minister not to go on with it. I am willing to expedite business but I do not think the bill ought to be gone on with until we see the accounts for last year. We should have the reports of these same auditors.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend made that
observation the other day in my absence, and the Prime Minister promised to refer the question to me. The report of the Canadian National as well as the report of the auditors will not be ready before late in the month of March, as was the Case last year. Since this bill provides only for the appointment of the auditors, it is a mere formality, and it would not matter very much if we dispose of this bill appointing the auditors, or delay the bill until the reports are in. I have been informed by the officials of the Canadian National Railways that they will have their reports ready before the end of March; as my hon. friend indicated the other day, on account of the great amount of work that has been done by the railway, the report might be delayed a little longer than last year. Therefore it may be the end of March before we are in a position to proceed with this bill if we have to wait until the report of the Canadian National Railways is ready.

Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these auditors appointed for the calendar year or for the fiscal year of the railway, which may be the calendar year for all I know?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; the fiscal year is the
calendar year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These
auditors are acting already, it is a continuous audit; they are never off the job so to speak, and it does not make much difference whether they are appointed to-day or in March, but I do think there is a reason why we should postpone it.
On motion of Mr. Cardin the debate was adjourned.



PETROLEUM


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (for the Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to repeal the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Explain.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This bill stands, it will be
observed, in the name of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), but unfortunately my colleague is indisposed this evening, and in order to facilitate the business of the house I am undertaking this task. I must confess, however, that I really do not know a great deal about the bill. The explanatory note reveals the purpose of the measure. It is a repeal measure entirely. Apparently the original act was passed in 1877, which provided for certain forms of inspection. I am not able to give the house the details, but I presume, inspection of wells producing petroleum and naphtha, and also of factories or industrial establishments processing the same. Apparently the inspection has passed out of usage. I judge from the explanatory note that the regulations of municipal and provincial bodies regarding this inspection have superseded the inspection requirements contemplated under the act of 1877, and therefore there is no need of retaining that measure on the statute books. So this bill is introduced to repeal it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have some observations to make on this bill. I recall that in introducing the bill the minister gave a brief explanation in which he laid it down as a principle that the provisions of the act were obsolete and outmoded. That, I think, is largely true, but there are one or two things in that act which ought to be retained, and when I call attention to them, and the department and the
minister give consideration to them, I believe their retention will be found desirable.
A word on the drafting of the bill. It is a repealing section. It is declaratory, and I suggest the insertion of the word "hereby"- "is hereby repealed". I do not know that that is important, but it is better drafting.
The explanatory note reads:
Practically all the operative provisions of this act have been superseded by other acts and regulations of municipal, provincial or federal origin. . . .
Anyone who reviews the whole act, as I took occasion to do the other day, will agree that many sections were designed to meet conditions existing when the act was passed, away back before I was born, and owing to changes in these conditions the majority of the sections have not much if any importance to-day. But it occurs to me in reading the act that there are three or four sections which are still of importance, and which, so far as I am aware, are not duplicated by any other act of the federal parliament. I believe the minister should examine some of these sections and explain why it is not proposed to retain them.
Take, for example, section 3:
3.	The governor in council may, from time to time, make such regulations respecting the storage and possession of petroleum and naphtha as lie deems necessary for the public safety, and may make special regulations as to the importation or possession of naphtha and as to the sale thereof and use for illuminating purposes;
Then sections 4 and 5 seem to me worthy of retention:
4. The governor in council may, from time to time, designate places at which petroleum may be imported in tank cars and in tank ships respectively. . . .
5.	The department may make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, with respect to the transportation, shipment or sale of imported or domestic petroleum or naphtha.
I assume that both sections have been operative in the past. Powers similar to those contained in these sections are now, I believe, vested in the oil controller under an order in council passed pursuant to the War Measures Act. But I point out to the house and to the Minister of National Revenue that these powers of the oil controller are of a transitory nature, and that at the close of the war and upon the disappearance of the War Measures Act these powers will disappear. Should there not rest in some governmental body some power to regulate the storage and possession of petroleum, which power would continue in peace time? If you repeal this statute there is no power. This deo.'e with
806	COMMONS
Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act
dangerous inflammable substances. In municipal communities, we try to kee>p these things away outside the city limits. I do not know under just what authority that is done; I know that in my own community we try to keep them as far away from the residential district as possible in order to keep down the fire hazard. But if sections 3, 4 and 5 are repealed, there will then be no one authority charged with the responsibility of making regulations about the conditions of storage of this most inflammable material. I do not think such an authority is necessary. At the moment it is not necessary, because I believe the order in council passed under the War Measures Act gives the oil controller full control over all these matters; but if you repeal this statute, at the conclusion of the war there will be no governmental body responsible for this sort of thing. If .we have jurisdiction now to pass the legislation which was passed and which is now sought to be repealed, then of course the jurisdiction is not with the provinces. I am just assuming that; I have not looked up the constitutional aspect. But I do suggest-and I offer this suggestion in the utmost good faith -that this power of control over storage and all the other things to which these sections refer should be retained in the post-war period. I think I have only to mention that to bring home to the minister the advisability of its being done. Somebody ought to have that authority. Perhaps there is some other authority; I do not know. At the moment the only authority I know of is the oil controller; and I do suggest to the minister- and this is a concrete suggestion to which I hope he will direct his colleague's attention- that these sections should be retained and perhaps redrafted to meet modern conditions.
I can give the minister an additional reason, from a local point of view. Some time ago there was drawn to my attention what was stated to be a serious situation in connection with the storage of petroleum products in Vancouver. I was told that this situation constituted a serious hazard to the people of that city, particularly in the event of air raids. I do not know what may have been done to rectify the situation, but what I have in mind is that there should be an act of this parliament which would empower the federal government to take direct steps in an instance of the kind to which I have referred, which might threaten the safety of a large number of people. I spoke of that before.
Then a question of some importance arises from the fact that this act was actually suspended by order in council P.C. 4-5204, passed on July 16, 1941, under the provisions of the War Measures Act. I assume it was found necessary to do so because of the, shall I
	* >_j
say, somewhat obsolete provisions of the act, which are essentially of a peace-time nature. It would appear by every criterion that it was an abuse of the War Measures Act to use it in order to suspend the operations of a peace-time act of parliament. The conditions which led the governor in council to approve passage of the order in council of July 16 last surely must have been evident when parliament was in session last year, since adjournment did not take place until June 14.
I think the position ought to be reviewed, and I believe the minister will see that there is merit in the statute if these three sections are re-drafted and brought up to date. May I make one further appeal; that there be a cessation of the use of the War Measures Act for purposes essentially of a peace-time nature. The act never was so intended and cannot properly be so construed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to say a word on this bill. When the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) spoke on the matter previously he said that the bill was being brought down in order to stop the adulteration of petroleum and naphtha. To-day it is not a question of adulteration; the refineries are stepping up the gasoline so high that it is really dangerous, and we need an act to protect us. The Germans and Japanese are using gasoline with an octane rating of about 87. Canada and the United States are using gasoline with an octane rating of about 100. In order to step it up not only do they refine the gasoline to a higher degree; they put in propanes and other substances which bring it up to an anti-knock rating, and higher. These propanes have a freezing point of about 45 degrees below zero. That is all right when they are used in an aeroplane or an automobile, because the gases from the propane will sink to the bottom; but if this gasoline is used in a fishing boat, or any other boat, those gases will stay in the hull and cause explosions. This law should protect the fishermen from the danger of explosions caused by the use of propane in our gasoline. Therefore I believe this act ought to be revised all the way through, to take care of the sort of gasoline we are using to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Act repealed.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I hardly expected that the minister would allow the observations I made to go by without some comment. I was quite serious in what I had

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
to say. I do not want to impede the passage of this legislation, but I suggest to the minister that there is some merit in what I said and that he should ask this committee to rise and report progress in order that his colleague may become conversant with what I said, and consult his officers. They may have a very good answer to my statements; I do not know enough about the matter to say. But these were thoughts I had about it, and I believe there is something in them. I am not quite certain that there is any other controlling factor to-day than the oil controller, and obviously that is a war-time authority that will cease when peace comes. Then there will be nothing. I suggest that the minister should have the committee report progress and let this matter stand until the minister, and particularly the technical men of his department who no doubt are advising him in the matter, may consider the representations which have been made. I Cannot add anything to what I have already said, but I have offered the suggestions in good faith, and I think there is something in them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That will be quite agreeable to the government. I might, however, make an observation or two on the comments offered by the leader of the opposition before we went into committee. Let me say at once that I am not familiar with the provisions of this measure-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I realize that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -that I have not studied it, and consequently what I have to say must be considered in view of that fact. But 1 think it will be found that matters concerning the inspection of oil wells, and everything having to do with them, come under provincial jurisdiction. I happen to know, for instance, that in Alberta, where in recent years there has been a substantial oil development, the provincial government does pass regulations regarding storage, transportation within the province, and like matters. I fancy these come within their jurisdiction, probably wholly so. When, however, it comes to matters of transportation in interprovincial trade, and so on, then the federal authority would have some jurisdiction. But I assume-and I may be wrong-that provisions necessarily governing the transportation are provided for in other measures probably enacted subsequently to 1877, and that that is the reason for asking the repeal in this instance.
I have just one other comment to make, and that is with regard to the observations by the leader of the opposition in invoking the War Measures Act to pass certain regulations to set aside provisions of an act which was very largely, if not entirely, obsolete. I do not think, on reflection, that any hon. member would dispute that it is necessary to have direct control,.through the oil controller, over the movement of oil and gasoline when we are at war. It is quite true, as my hon. friend has said, that the provisions of that measure will lapse with the declaration of peace. But I do not believe his criticism was altogether deserved when he found fault with the government for taking steps under the War Measures Act to bring about a proper regulation of this matter in war time, and not proceeding by way of an amending act in the house.
Sometimes I am concerned with the extent of the powers which have to be used arbitrarily by the executive in war time. But we are in a war, and decisions frequently have to be made with a great deal of celerity. Time will not wait. I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that the government always has in mind the exercising of these powers in the public interest; and our good faith in that respect will have to be the justification for our actions.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for sendee in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces an order in council similar in content to the bill now before the house. The bill, in turn, is similar to legislation now existing in Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, although it follows more closely the legislation in Great Britain.
This bill provides for the orderly reinstatement, at the conclusion of hostilities, of men who have served in the forces on sea, on land or in the air. It also provides penalties for breaches of the provisions. It also provides that where agreements exist between employers and employees, on a mutual basis, provided those agreements are not less advantageous than the act itself, they shall be permitted to remain in effect.
In my opinion the measure will provide for the orderly reinstatement of tens of thousands of men who will leave the fighting forces at
8U3	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
the conclusion of the war, a provision which, I believe, we will all agree is somewhat in advance of the condition that existed at the conclusion of the last war. I played some part in the drafting of the original order in council, and in my opinion this is legislation which the people in Canada will approve. It is beneficial to the men to whom it is intended to apply, and I believe the house will approve the principle of 'the bill placed before it.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, may I add something to the observations of my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). The order in council in question was applied on June 27, 1941, and was numbered P.C. 4758. It was passed on the recommendation of the general advisory committee on demobilization and rehabilitation, and an interdepartmental committee on labour coordination.
The order in council was passed, and I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked the then Minister of Labour if he would supplement the order in council by legislation in parliament.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the date of the order in council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is order in council P.C. 4758. and it is dated June 27, 1941. Then, by agreement the house came to the conclusion it would not bring down legislation at the last session, but would do so early in the next, or present one. Consequent upon the undertaking then given to the leader of the opposition, the present legislation is identical with that order in council, which was drafted by my colleague the Minister of Labour. The regulations in connection therewith are .appended to the order in council and will be found at page 204 of volume 4 of the proclamations and orders in council relating to the war.
I think my hon. friend is desirous of adjourning the debate. The matter is noncontentious. It was considered by a parliamentary committee on pensions last year, and the Canadian Legion and other organizations have recommended that the government take action along these lines-first of all by way of order in council, as I have explained, and now by the bill actually before the house. I am surje all hon. members will be in agreement with the general principle of the legislation. The members who sat on the committee last year so expressed themselves. That is the only explanation I can give at the present time.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does it mean anything?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; may I interrupt my hon. friend. In my experience in the administration of the department we have replaced, by compulsory methods, several ex-service men, within the last two or three months, under the provisions of the order in council I have recited.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to the minister for reminding me of the circumstances under which the bill has been brought down. I recall them now perfectly. I regret, however, that I have not had time to study the bill. My colleague the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicoI) wishes to say a few words about it, and I am going to give way to him. I understand it will be agreeable if he moves the adjournment of the debate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Does the hon. member wish to speak on second reading, or in committee?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I
should like to adjourn the debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will not hold it up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I may adjourn the debate, I should like to do so. The other night I spoke to the Prime Minister, and it was understood that the bill would not be
before us this week. I am in accord with some of the principles contained in the measure, but I should like to point out some aspects which should be clarified.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has been kind enough to remind me of the conversation we had together. I would remind him that the night he wanted off was Friday- not to-night. I am, however, prepared to abide by the wishes of the house.
On motion of Mr. MacNicoI the debate was adjourned.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	Agriculture-departmental administration, $125,558.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 9.12 p.m.

Secret Session of the House
Tuesday, February 24, 1942