1943-02-22

QUESTION AS TO EXPRESSION OF OPINION BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT OF UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In view of the press report that the United States is taking a direct interest in the present situation in India, and in view of widespread apprehension as to its effect upon our war effort as united nations, has the Prime Minister expressed any opinion to the government of the United Kingdom regarding the matter?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The answer is no.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to 
the Minister of Finance. Will he be good enough to inform the house what consideration the government has given and what decisions have been arrived at with respect to the request of the organized government employees for direct representation on the treasury board civil service advisory committee?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The hon. gentleman gave me notice of this question, which I received just before coming in. Several bodies of organized civil servants have presented many requests for favourable consideration, all coming down to this-higher pay, more money. This is particularly true, almost wholly true, with regard to the middle and upper income brackets in the service. Very difficult questions were raised by these numerous requests and I finally felt it desirable that the government get- a little advice from some independent source, that is, from persons who had not prejudged the case one way or the other. A committee, headed by Mr. Coon of the bank of Nova Scotia, was therefore set up to advise the treasury board. As soon as that was done, organized bodies of civil servants began to press very hard for representation on that committee. I felt and feel now that since we know exactly what they want, and since they have repeatedly and very ably made their representations both orally and in writing, I should not be justified in recommending to the government that a representative of them be added to this committee. I do not intend to make any such recommendation to the government.
The specific answer is that I do not think the government as a government has given consideration to the request of the organized civil servants, because I have declined and feel that 1 must decline to recommend that a representative of the civil servants, whose views we know and have before us, should be added to a body such as we have set up for advisory purposes.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).
1.	Have plans been made for slowing down the production of military vehicles, tanks, guns and other fighting equipment, coincidental with the expansion of production of

Selective Service
ships? 2. If so, when does this go into effect?
3.	Will it result in releasing man-power for other work? 4. If so, how much?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The form of the question has been pretty well set forth in the statement made by the hon. member. I thmk it should be placed upon the order paper.


IRON ORE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, February 20, there appeared a Canadian Press report stating in effect that the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation's iron ore mine at Wabana, Newfoundland, the source of most of the ore for the big steel plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia, was to be closed on February 25. In view of the serious shortage of steel for our war plants will the minister say whether he has investigated this matter and will every effort be made to see that this mine remains open?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The difficulty about iron ore from Wabana to serve the Dominion Steel and Coal company is one of transportation. As my hon. friend may know, three of the company's largest ore boats were sunk by enemy action last autumn. The result was that the company was forced to find ore on the mainland, and a mine was opened near Bathurst, New Brunswick. About three hundred thousand tons of ore are being shipped from that mine to Sydney. The situation at Wabana at the moment is that
500,000	tons of ore are banked there awaiting shipment, and that is the total storage capacity available. It was therefore necessary to close the mining operations, since no disposition could be found for any additional ore at this time. As soon as navigation opens ore will move again from Wabana; the government is furnishing boats for the purpose, and the mine will reopen.


Mr. GILLIS:: Supplementary to the question just asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) may I say that the department was carrying on some investigations with respect to the development of iron ore deposits in Inverness county, Nova Scotia. Will the minister inform the house what progress has been made?


Thomas Vien: I think that question should be placed on the order paper.


SELECTIVE SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): In view of the situation that has arisen in the last week in our munition factories in western Ontario, would the Minister of Labour give consideration to extending the privilege to farmers in off-season time of working in the munition factories, including them with logging and other primary industries? The situation is serious.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The whole question of farm labour, and that is what is involved in the question of the hon. member, is continually receiving the consideration of the Department of Labour. The hon. member can rest assured that in the not very distant future a statement will be made by me in the house in regard to the matter.


Mr. HOMUTH:: By the new regulations these men are only allowed to work sixty days on other than farm labour. They now feel that they have to leave work in munition factories and so there is an exodus from the munition factories to snow-covered farms.


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) a question. In view of the numerous petitions he has received to that effect, will he order the release of Mr. Camil-lien Houde from an internment camp?
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Mr. Camillien Houde knows what to do if he wishes his case to be reconsidered. He must apply to an advisory committee, and whenever he so desires he can file an application.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: 1.	Has the Canadian government received any aid from the United States government undei lease-lend law during the year 1942?
2.	If so, to what extent-in dollars value?
Questions


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Canada has not received lend-lease assistance on its own account from the United States government. Some materials and supplies provided to the United Kingdom by the United States under lend-lease arrangements have been used in Canada, in part incorporated in Canadian products for the United Kingdom, in part in exchange for other United States supplies purchased by Canada to be used in production for the United Kingdom, and in part as the United Kingdom's contribution in kind to the combined air training plan.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many houses have been built to date under Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	How many in each province, stating the city or the location of the same?
3.	What has been the total cost?
4.	What is the total number of staff employed and the cost of same since its inception?
5.	How many of a staff is there in each province?
6.	Is the programme of housing to be built now complete?
7.	What is the number of houses built by Wartime Housing Limited, in January of the present year and where are these located?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Contracts let by Wartime Housing Limited to date are for 15,623 houses. 9,370 of these are complete as of January 31, 1943.
2.	The following is a list giving the number of houses contracted for in each province together with the location of same:
Project	No. of
houses
Nova Scotia
Amherst	'	 150
Dartmouth No. 1	 100
Eastern Passage	 170
Dartmouth No. 2	 214
Halifax	 980
New Glasgow	 136
Pictou	 400
2,150
New Brunswick
Saint John No. 1	 100
Moncton No. 1	 200
Quebec
Arvida No. 1	 200
Beauharnois No. 1	 100
Brownsburg	 100
Cap de la Madeleine No. 1 ...	100
Cartierville No. 1	 400

Project	No.	of
houses
Quebec-C oncluded.
Chicoutimi No. 1	 100
De Salaberry No.	1	
150De Salaberry No.	2	
100Hull No. 1	
100Hull No. 2	
50Jonquiere No. 1	
100Lac a La Tortue No. 1	
10La Tuque No. 1	
50Lauzon No. 1	
100Quebec No. 1	
200Rock Island No.	1	
50St. Paul l'Ermite	No. 1	
37St. Therese No. 1	
100Sorel No. 1	
150Valleyfield	
10Waterloo	
25
2,232
Ontario
Brantford	 200
Collingwood No.	1	
100Collingwood No.	2	
50Cornwall No. 1	
50Dundas No. 1	
43Dundas No. 2	
50Fort Erie	
234Fort William	
326Frankford	
100Galt No. 1	
50Hamilton	
1,450Kingston No. 1	
250Long Branch No. 1	
75Long Branch No. 2	
125Malton No. 1	
100Malton No. 3	
100Merritton No. 1	
42Merritton No. 2	
50Niagara Falls	
250Nobel No. 1	
20Nobel No. 2	
200Orillia	
75Oshawa	
50Ottawa	
40Parry Sound	
130Peterborough	
557Pickering	
600Port Arthur	
50Renfrew	
70Sault Ste. Marie	No. 1	
100Sault Ste. Marie	No. 2	
100St. Catharines	
683Sarnia	
50Wallaceburg	
50Welland	
860Woodstock	
35Windsor	
2,050
9,365

Questions
Project	No. of
houses
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw	 50
British Columbia
Esquimalt	 175
North Vancouver	 750
Prince Rupert	 501
Victoria	 100
1,526
Total number of houses	15,623
3.	The estimated total cost of these houses approximates $46,072,227. The costs include actual or estimated costs covering-
(1)	Acquisition of land.
(2)	Legal and other expenses in connection with acquiring same.
(3)	All costs for engineering construction, inspection, etc., in connection with the installation of sewage systems and water supplies wherever required.
(4)	All costs for grading, roads, walks, etc., as required.
(5. All construction costs involved in the erection of the houses inclusive of inspection.
(6) All costs involved in equipping the houses-stoves, blinds, etc.
4.	The total number of staff now permanently employed is 858. This staff subdivides into many different categories from maids, cooks, janitors, and maintenance men, etc., to the skilled technical staffs in the head office of wartime housing limited-engineering, architectural, accounting and management divisions. The number shown does not include construction personnel engaged on projects being constructed by wartime housing limited. It only includes the type of personnel employed on weekly or longer period bases.
From its inception to December 31, 1942, the total amount expended in salaries by wartime housing limited is $705,636.24.
5.	The following is a list of staff employed in each province: Nova Scotia, 184 employees; New Brunswick, 21 employees; Quebec, 140 employees; Ontario, 392 employees; Saskatchewan, 1 employee; British Columbia, 120 employees.
6.	The programme of housing to be built is not yet complete. There are 6,253 houses at present under construction.
7.	No houses were completely built in January of 1943.


RADIO BROADCASTING-COMMISSIONS TO POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ON LICENCE SALES
Mr. MARSHALL:: What commissions were received from the Department of Transport by the Post Office Department for radio licences sold in the year 1942, and what disposition was made of these commissions?


Mr. MULOCK:: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1942,-$9,100.85. Included in gross revenue of Post Office Department.


POST OFFICE-PROFIT ON PERSONAL MESSAGES TO ENEMY AND ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES
James Alexander Marshall: What was the net profit on personal messages mailed to enemy and enemy occupied countries by the Post Office Department in the year 1942, and what disposition was made of these profits?


William Pate Mulock: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, $1,535.01. Included in gross revenue of Post Office Department.


FLAX CRUSHING MILLS
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What is the total capacity of flax crushing mills in Canada?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	Will the government assist in increasing this capacity?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Present estimated annual capacity
6,395,000	bushels. It is possible that this capacity may be increased in the near future by the acquisition of additional machinery and by processing improvements.
2.	Quebec-Montreal, 3 plants.
Ontario-
Toronto, 2 plants.
Baden, 1 plant.
Hamilton, 1 plant under construction.
Manitoba-
Winnipeg, 1 plant.
St. Boniface, 1 plant.
Alberta-Medicine Hat, 1 plant.
3.	No.


ATLANTIC COAST LOBSTER FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the attention of the Department of Fisheries been drawn to the shortage of manpower, gear and equipment in the lobster fishing industry on the Atlantic coast?
2.	What steps, if any, are being taken by the Department of Fisheries to allow lobster fishermen operating in the Northumberland straits adjacent to a district having a spring season and a district having a fall season, to use his gear and equipment to trap lobsters in both seasons of 1943?

Questions


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	No.
2.	After full consideration, and under existing conditions, it is not considered in public interest to effect any change in the lobster fishing regulations.	*


FLAX PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What is the estimated number of bushels of flax which Canada produced in 1942?
2.	How many flax processing plants are situated in Canada?
3.	Where are such plants located?
4.	What is the individual capacity of each such plant per year?
5.	Are there sufficient processing plants on the North American continent to take care of the processing of more flax than that produced on the continent in 1942?
6.	If not, when was this fact brought to the attention of the administration and in what manner?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Production (western Canada)-14,700,000 bushels. When allowing for 10 per cent dockage, the marketable crop was-13,230,000 bushels.
2.	Nine in operation. One under construction.
3.	Quebec'-Montreal, 3 plants.
Ontario-
Toronto, 2 plants.
Baden, 1 plant.
Hamilton, 1 plant under construction.
Manitoba-
Winnipeg, 1 plant.
St. Boniface, 1 plant
Alberta-Medicine Hat, 1 plant.
4.	It is considered undesirable to disclose the individual capacity of each flax processing plant in Canada, as to do so would divulge to competitors the business affairs of private firms. However, the total capacity of all plants in Canada is 6,395,000 bushels.
5.	Yes.
6.	See reply to question 5.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-OTTAWA HOUSING REGISTRY COMMITTEE
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Has the wartime prices and trade board set up an organization known as "Ottawa housing registry committee"?
2.	If so, who are the officers of this organization and what remuneration either by way of salary or personal expenses, is allowed them?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ottawa Housing Registry committee members: Mr. C. A. McCracken, chairman; Miss Violet Tennant, secretary; Sister Mary Shostak, Miss L. O'Boyle, (Sisters of Service); Miss Joy Maines (Citizen's Committee-Council of Social Agencies); Mr. H. Rheaume (Civil Service Commission); Miss D. Randle (Civil Service Commission); Madame Gustave Lanctot-another appointment to be made-meanwhile, Miss Edna Inglis or Mrs. Norman McLarty are acting (Consumer Branch); Mr. T. W. Cowan (Y.M.C.A.-second appointment to be made); Mother St. Thomas, Sister St. Andrew (Institut Jeanne d'Arc); Mrs. H. Frechette, Dr. L. I. Pugsley, (Y.W.C.A.); Major C. S. Ford (City of Ottawa); Mrs. Alan C. Fleming (Women's Volunteer Bureau). No remuneration either by way of salary or personal expenses is allowed to any member of this committee.


GASOLINE RATION COUPON BOOKS DISTRIBUTION
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to use the services of the issuers of car licences throughout Canada to distribute the new gasoline ration books?
2.	If so, what arrangements have been made?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	The category "AA" gasoline licence and ration coupon books are all issued through the issuer of motor vehicle licences in the various provinces. The "special" books are issued only through the regional offices of the oil controller.


CAMP BORDEN RAILWAY FACILITIES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Are the removal of the railroad tracks to a different location at Camp Borden contemplated?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost of the same?
3.	Is the project now under way ?
4.	Will the project be carried out under contract or day labour?
5.	If the project is to be carried out by contract, what is the contract price or the nature of the contract?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	This work has been completed.
2.	Total cost, $71,032.00.
3.	See reply to No. 1.
4.	Both. Some military labour was used for the day labour portion.

Questions
5.	The portion of the work carried out jointly by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway was done by agreement. The funds allocated for this were $35,932.00. Arrangements were made as follows:-
A meeting of representatives of the quartermaster-general, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways was held on July 23, 1942. It was agreed that railway engineers confer with the camp commander, Camp Borden, then submit proposal and estimated costs.
The railways proposal and costs ($35,932.00) were submitted August 11, 1942.
Arrangements for carrying out the work were made between the camp engineer officer and railway representative at Camp Borden.
A letter of approval to the Canadian Pacific Railway from, the quartermaster-general was sent October 8, 1942.


CAMP BORDEN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Is the erection of a new administration t,\i lding contemplated at Camp Borden?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost of the construction of the building?
3.	Is it to be built by contract or day labour?
4.	Have contracts been let for the construction?
5.	What is the contract price or the nature of the contract?
6.	When will it be completed?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Under consideration-no decision arrived at as yet.
2 to 6. Answered by No. 1.
2.	If so, what decision has the government arrived at in the matter? -
3.	Will residence in Canada by prisoners of war, brought about by their incarceration, be considered a valid reason for their permanent residence following the conclusion of hostilities?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No negotiations have taken place between the United Kingdom and Canada regarding the sending of Italian prisoners of war to be employed in work in Canada.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Prisoners of war do not acquire a permanent status in Canada, since they are not admitted as immigrants. Their temporary stay in Canada would not legally entitle them. to admission for permanent residence.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-RADIO TECHNICIANS
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence for Air formulated any plans for the recognition by way of promotion for merit, of radio technicians of the R.C.A.F. who are serving overseas?
2.	If so, when will they be put into force?


Mr. POWER:: This is a question which perhaps can be better answered than by a mere yes or no. If my hon. friend will agree to let it stand until the discussion comes up on the war appropriation, I think I can then deal with it in a far more satisfactory manner than by a short answer now.
Question stands.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FUEL COMPANIES
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Is the Canada-United States joint defence board still functioning?
2.	If so, who are the Canadian members of such board?
3.	How many meetings has the board held since January 1, 1942?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Canadian members of the board are: Colonel O. M. Biggar, chairman; Major-General M. A. Pope, Rear Admiral G. C. Jones, Air Vice Marshal N. R. Anderson, Mr. H. L. Keenleyside, secretary.
3.	The board has held twelve meetings since January 1, 1942.
Mr. O'NEILL:
1.	Is any monetary assistance being given by the government to, (a) Canada Western Fuel Company, Nanaimo, (b) Middlesboro Collieries, Merritt, British Columbia?
2.	If so, on what basis and what amount has been paid to each?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) No such company, (b) Yes.
2.	Middlesboro Collieries, Merritt, British Columbia, (i) Assistance paid by coal administrator under wartime prices and trade board in respect to cost of living bonus August 24, 1942 to October 31, 1942, $448.36. (ii) By emergency coal production board in respect to production subsidy, October 1, 1942, to February 28, 1943, $9,600.


ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAB
Mr. REID:: n ^iY1' ^py negotiations taken place between Ureat Britain and Canada regarding the sending of Italian prisoners of war, to be employed in work here?
72537-37i


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-FARM PRODUCTS
Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the government given power to the wartime prices and trade board, which would allow the board to compel farmers to market
Questions

farm products grown by them and which products have been placed under regulations as to prices by the wartime prices and trade board.
2.	Has such power been granted the wartime prices and trade board which would give them authority to seize or take forcible possession of any farm produce from a farmer, and which farm products may be under the price regu- -lations of the board?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Under the wartime price and trade regulations, being P.C. 8528 of November 1, 1941, the board has power to require any person producing .... processing .... or dealing in any goods or services to produce . . . process. . . . distribute, deliver .... or otherwise deal with any goods or services in such manner .... as may be specified by the board.
2.	The same regulations empower the board to take possession of any supplies of any goods.
Under the said regulations farm produce is in the same position as any other goods.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-AIR MAIL SERVICE
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What is the cost of sending a letter air mail [DOT]to a member of the armed forces overseas?
2.	Does any of this mail go by boat?
3.	If so, what percentage goes by boat?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Airgraph, 6 cents. Armed forces air letter,
10 cents. Ordinary air mail, 30 cents per half ounce. No service on account of lack of aircraft capacity.
2.	Airgraph, all by plane.
Armed forces air letter. Owing to shortage of space on transatlantic aircraft due to priority accorded war equipment, it has not been possible during recent months to give air conveyance to all correspondence prepaid at air mail rates and the excess quantity has had to be forwarded by ship. Operating officers are instructed to advise the public accordingly and the department is endeavouring by means of a strenuous publicity to have the public use airgraph.
3.	Airgraph, all by plane. None by boat. Armed forces air letter. Oct. 1942, 30 per
cent; Nov. 1942, nil; Dec. 1942, 34 per cent (Christmas mailings); Jan. 1943, 3 per cent; Feb. 1943, nil up to the present.


CANADIAN INVESTMENTS IN CUBA
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What amount is invested by Canadian banks in Cuba?
2.	What is the amount of all other Canadian investments in Cuba?
JMr. Reid.)


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No information. The chartered banks monthly return of assets and liabilities to the Minister of Finance does not disclose particulars of assets and' liabilities by various countries.
2.	No information.


BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is the bank for international settlements, established in 1930, still in operation?
2.	If so, has Canada any representation?
3.	(a) What representation is held by the united nationals; (b) what representation is held by the axis powers and all countries controlled by the axis powers?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The annual report of the bank for international settlements for the year ended March 31, 1942, discloses directors representing various countries as follows: Great Britain, 3; Netherlands, 1; Belgium, 1; Switzerland, 1; Sweden, 1; France, 3; Italy, 2; Germany, 4.


COMMERCIAL AIR ROUTES
Mr. GREEN:: 1 What agreements are in existence between Canada and any other country or countries concerning commercial air routes?
2. Upon what dates were such agreements made?
3 Are negotiations under way at the present time between Canada and any other country or countries concerning commercial air routes'
4.	If so, with what country or countries, and what is the purpose thereof?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 and 2.	.	.
(a)	Multilateral-The convention relating to the regulation of aerial navigation, Pans, 1919, with additional protocols in 1920, 1922, 1923'and 1929.
(b)	United Kingdom, Ireland and Newfoundland-On March 26, 1936, the Canadian government approved, subject to one proviso, the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by the conference of representatives of the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland and Canada, held in Ottawa m November and December, 1935, to discuss trans-Atlantic air routes. The terms of the intergovernmental trans-Atlantic air services agreement of 1935-36 were set forth in a statement given to the press on July 30, 1936, by the Honourable C. D. Howe, Minister of Railways. The principal points dealt with in

Questions
this agreement have never become operative and the whole position of the parties to the agreement is now under consideration.
(c)	Newfoundland - Arrangement giving Trans-Canada Airlines permission to conduct a service between Canada and Newfoundland from April 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943, renewable from year to year thereafter. (Exchange of letters of February 6, 7, 9 and 27, 1942.)
(d)	United States of America-(1) Permit dated December 2, 1941, granted to Pan American Airways Incorporated to fly into, through and away from Canada on a transAtlantic air transport service until April 30, 1951. (Exchange of notes of November 4, December 3 and 22, 1941.) (In substitution for permit issued on March 5, 1937.)
(2)	Agreement relating to the operation in either Canada or the United States of civil aircraft duly registered in the territory of the other country. (Exchange of notes of July 28,
1938,	treaty series, 1938, No. 8.)
(3)	Arrangement relating to air transport services. (Exchange of notes of August 18,
1939,	treaty series, 1939, No. 10.)
(4)	Arrangement giving American Export Airlines Incorporated permission to conduct a service over Canadian territory en route non-stop (except for emergency landings at Halifax) between New York and Ireland, for the duration of present hostilities and subject to certain conditions. (Exchange of notes of February 26, and March 19, 1942, modified by letters of June 24 and July 9, 1942.)
3.	Yes.
4.	Negotiations are taking place with the United States for the conclusion of an agreement to continue in force the supplementary air transport arrangement of 1940 (treaty series, 1940. No. 13) which expired on December 31, 1942.


RADIO BROADCASTING-DRUMMOND WREN
Mr. ROSS (Middlesex East):: 1.	Who is Drummond Wren of Toronto?
2.	Has he ever received any payments from the public funds?
3.	If so, for what purpose; what is the aggregate amount?
4.	What, if any, have been the relations of the said Drummond Wren with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
5.	Has there been any dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Mr. Wren, or any organization represented by Mr. Wren?
6.	If so, what was the nature of the dispute?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	Mr. Drummond Wren is general secretary of the Workers' Educational Association.
2.	He has received payment from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
3.	For services rendered in connection with the National Labour Forum: in 1941, $17; in 1942, $360.
4.	As secretary of the National Labour Forum, a weekly programme of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
5 and 6. Mr. Wren objected to the script.


MAPLE SUGAR AND SYRUP
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of all maple products manufactured in Canada in 1942?
2.	How many gallons of maple syrup were produced by the manufacturers in the same year?
3.	How many pounds of maple sugar were produced?
4.	What was the average price per gallon and per pound?
5.	What was the value and quantity of Canada's exports of these products?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Value of all maple products in Canada in 1942, $6,716,300.
2.	Number of gallons of maple syrup produced by the manufacturers in 1942, 2,876,900.
3.	Number of pounds of maple sugar produced, 3,737,200.
4.	Average price per gallon, $2.07. Average price per pound, 20 cents.
5.	Value and quantity of Canada's exports of maple syrup, $729,617; 379,504 gallons. Value and quantity of Canada's exports of maple' sugar, $1,438,779 ; 5,818,214 pounds.


MILITARY SERVICE-LEAVE TO FARMERS FOR MAPLE SUGAR OPERATIONS
Liguori Lacombe: Will leave of absence from military training be granted to sons of farmers and farm hands to enable them to participate in the next maple products harvest?


Mr. RALSTON:: The answer to this question is that general leave of absence will not. be granted, that no general order of the kind: will be made, but that individual applications-by soldiers will receive appropriate consideration, the same as applications in connection with other occupations for what may be regarded as essential purposes.


LABOUR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many labour-management committees are functioning in Canada to-day?
2.	How many employees are engaged in the plants where such committees function?
Questions

3.	Are such committees functioning in crown companies ?
4.	If so, how many, and which of them?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Approximately 631.
2.	Approximately 327,395.
3.	Yes.
4.	Committees are operating at Small Arms Ltd., Toronto, Toronto Shipbuilding Co., Toronto, and Research Enterprises Ltd., Toronto, and others are at the formation stage.


&quot;CANADA AT WAR&quot;
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many copies of each monthly number of the publication Canada at War, have been printed in each month since September, 1942?
2.	Of these numbers, how many have actually been distributed in each month?
3.	What was the total cost of the printing of each of these monthly numbers?
4.	What was the total cost of distributing each of these monthly numbers?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	October, 1942-Canada at War was not published. November, 1942-English, 125,000; French, 50,000. December, 1942-English, 121,640; French, 60,000. January, 1943- English, 113,000; French, 73,000. February, 1943-English, 110,000; French, 55,000.
2.	November, 1942-English, 124,093; French, 49,257. December, 1942-English, 121,640; French, 60,000. January, 1943-English, 113,000; French, 67,220. February, 1943- English, distribution still in process; French, 53,842.
3.	November, 1942-$1,803.18. December, 1942-$2,390.50. January 1943-$1,870.68. February, 1943-bill not yet received.
4.	No separate records of distribution costs as applying to any one publication are kept.


SUBMARINES
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	How many submarines were built in Canada in the first world war?
2.	How many have been built during the present war?
3.	How many are now in commission?


Mr. ADAMSON:: It will be perfectly satisfactory if the minister gives a private reply in this case.
Question dropped.


FAIRMILES
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	How many "Fairmiles" have been built in Canada?
2.	How many are now under construction?
3.	How many are now in commission?
Question dropped.
IMr. Coldwell.l


DESTROYERS
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	Have any destroyers been built in Canada?
2.	Are any now building?
3.	How many are in commission?
Question dropped.


IMPORTS FROM AND EXPORTS TO SPAIN
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the value of Canadian exports to Spain for the calendar year 1942?
2.	What was the value of imports to Canada from Spain for the same period?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: This question deals with information which it is not the general policy of the government to make available in war time, but for fear that more harm might be done by not answering than by answering, I am submitting the answer. It is as follows:
1 and 2. Canadian imports and exports with Spain during the calendar year 1942:- Imports entered for consumption, $406,270; exports, $10,609.
WIDOWS WITH SONS IN ARMED FORCES- TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AND DEPENDENTS* ALLOWANCES


Mr. HOBLITZELL:: Will the government extend to widows whose sons are serving in the various armed services, the right to take temporary employment and keep both dependents' allowance and wages or salaries, as given to widows of civil servants under the terms of an order in council passed on February 11, last?


James Layton Ralston: This question concerns a matter of policy in connection with which an answer is not given until the policy itself is announced.
Question dropped.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government been advised by the government of Manitoba as to whether the amount of the old age pension, and the pension to the blind, to residents of that province, is to be increased?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the increase, and from what date is it to be effective?
3.	Was the government of Manitoba given assurance that this government would provide its three-fourths share of a proposed increase?
4.	Have assurances similar to the above been given to the governments of the other provinces?
5.	What steps are being taken by the government to make provision for such an increase throughout Canada?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No. However, the province of Manitoba has requested that the old age pensions

Questions
regulations be amended to allow that province to pay supplemental allowances to old age pensioners.
2.	These supplemental allowances are paid wholly by the province, accordingly the amount of the allowance and the date of commencement are matters to be decided solely by the province.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not the practice of the government to disclose policy in giving answers to questions; see, however, statement by Minister of Finance in House of Commons on November 14, 1941 (Hansard, page 4423).


INTERNATIONAL WAR COMMITTEES, BOARDS OR TRIBUNALS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Upon what international war committees, boards or tribunals is Canada represented?
2.	Who are the representatives of Canada upon each of these committees, boards or tribunals?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	(a) Pacific Council (Washington); Canadian member: Mr. Leighton McCarthy, Canadian Minister to the United States. Pacific War Council (London); Canadian member: Mr. Vincent Massey, Canadian High Commissioner, London.
(b)	Combined Production and Resources
Board; Canadian member:	C. D. Howe,
Minister of Munitions and Supply.
(c)	Combined Committee on Air Training in North America; Canadian member: Air Vice-Marshal R. Leckie.
(d)	Joint Economic Committees; Canadian members: Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, special assistant to the deputy minister of finance, chairman; George C. Bateman, metals controller, Department of Munitions and Supply; Dr. J. G. Bouchard, assistant deputy minister, Department of Agriculture; D. A. Skelton, Bank of Canada; H. L. Keenleyside, assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs, may sit with committee as occasion warrants. Liaison Officer: H. F. Angus, Department of External Affairs. Secretary: J. J. Deutsch, Department of External Affairs.
(e)	Permanent Joint Board on Defence; Canadian members: Col. O. M. Biggar, K.C., chairman, Victoria Building, 140 Wellington Street; Rear Admiral G. C. Jones, deputy chief of the naval staff, Department of National Defence; Major-General Maurice A. Pope,
chairman Canadian joint staff, Washington, D.C.; Air Vice-Marshal N. R. Anderson, R.C.AE. Secretary: H. L. Keenleyside, assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs.
(f)	Joint War Production Committee; Canadian members: Harry J. Carmichael, coordinator of production, Department of Munitions and Supply, chairman; R. P. Bell, director-general, aircraft production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply; E. J. Brunning, director-general, ammunition and gun production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply; J. R. Donald, director-general, chemicals and explosives branch, Department of Munitions and Supply; H. R. MacMillan, president, Wartime Merchant Shipping Ltd., Montreal; Hume Wrong, assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs. Secretary: Frank H. Brown, financial adviser to the Department of Munitions and Supply.
(g)	Materials Coordinating Committee; Canadian members: H. J. Symington, K.C., power controller; G. C. Bateman, metals controller; F. V. C. Hewett, executive secretary, Department of Munitions and Supply.
(h)	Combined Food Board:
Canadian members on committees established by the combined food board:
Sugar, Mr. H. J. H'obbins, deputy sugar administrator, wartime prices and trade board.
Oils and fats, Mrs. Phyllis G. Turner, oils and fats administrator.
Vitamins, Dr. L. B. Pett, director of nutrition service, Department of Pensions and National Health.
Seeds, Mr. Nelson Young, seeds administrator, Department of Agriculture.
Meats and meat products, Mr. L. W. Pearsall, assistant director of marketing service, Department of Agriculture.
Also attending: Dr. G. E. Britnell, wartime prices and trade board.
Fertilizers, Mr. G. S. Peart, administrator of fertilizers.
Fruits and vegetables, Col. L. R. Wheeler, assistant director of marketing service, Department of Agriculture.
Spices, coffee and cocoa, Mr. F. J. Kemlo, commodity prices stabilization corporation.
. Dairy and poultry products, Mr. J. F. Singleton, associate director of marketing service, Department of Agriculture.
Also attending: Mr. W. A. Brown, chief, poultry marketing and production, Department of Agriculture.
Dehydration, Mr. M. B. Davis, dominion horticulturist.
Questions

Fish and fish products, Dr. D. B. Finn, Deputy Minister of Fisheries.
Also attending: Dr. Stewart Bates, Department of Fisheries.
(i)	United Nations Information Board: Canadian Member:
L. B. Pearson, minister counsellor, Canadian legation, Washington.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DOMINION STATISTICS-&quot;PHYSICAL VOLUME OF BUSINESS&quot;
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What is meant by the term "physical volume of business" as used by the dominion bureau of statistics?
2.	What were the physical volume of business figures for the years, (a) 1942, (b) 1941, (c) 1940?
3.	What were the index figures for employment in Canada for the years (a) 1929, (b) 1933, (c) 1937, (d) 1941?
4.	What was the earning power per man per year for the years, (a) 1929, (b) 1933, (c) 1937, (d) 1941?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The term "Physical Volume of Business" applies to a monthly index of productive operations maintained by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The computation is based in recent years on 66 factors expressed in terms of volume. The components are classified under mining, manufactures, construction, central electric stations, railway traffic and distribution. The weighting is based on the "value added" by the productive processes of the respective industrial or service groups. The average for 1935 to 1939 is regarded as equalling 100 and the monthly index consequently is a percentage of the results for that period.
2.	The index of the physical volume of business in the three years was as follows: (a) 201-7; (b) 165-0; (c) 124-2.
3.	The index of employment on the base of 1926 in the four years was computed as:
(a)	119-0; (b) 83-4; (c) 114-1 (d) 152-3.
4.	Following are the remuneration rates of
the employees per man-year:	(a) $1,209;
(b)	S937; (c) $1,064; (d) $1,223.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many staff houses have been built by the Wartime Housing Company, Limited, and where were they built?

2.	In each ease, wrhat was the cost of (a) the land, (b) the sewers, (c) kitchen equipment, (d) dining room equipment, (e) refrigeration, (f) other services?
3.	What was the contract price for each staff house?
4.	What was the cost of equipping each?
5.	What does it cost per month for the staff for each staff house?
6.	What is the total monthly upkeep cost of each?
7.	What price per month is paid to the managers of each?
8.	How many men or women are paying room rent in each staff house?



MILITARY SERVICE-POSTPONEMENTS

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: How many men in each military district, as at December 31, 1942, have (a) been called up for military service, (b) have applied for postponement, (c) have been granted postponement for six months or longer?



PURCHASE OF GASOLINE BOAT &quot;THE KAWARTHA&quot;

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the government purchased a gasoline boat, formerly known as The Kawartha, and located at Bobcaygeon, Ontario?
2.	If so, from whom was the boat purchased?
3.	What was the purchase price?
4.	What expenditures have been incurred by way of repairs or alterations to the boat?



OTTAWA TEMPORARY BUILDINGS

Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Does the administration plan the erection of another temporary building in the city of Ottawa or Hull or the immediate vicinity thereof ?
2.	If so, what is, (a) the estimated cost of the land and building; (b) the specific use to which the building will be put?



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-FREDERICTON INTERNMENT CAMP

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has effect been given to the recommendation of the special committee reviewing the defence of Canada regulations, presented in the fourth and final report of Wednesday, June 4, 1941, suggesting that different classifications of persons detained under regulation 21, be segregated in separate places of detention?
2.	Did a serious riot occur among civilian internees of the Fredericton internment camp, on or about February 6?
3.	What classification of civilian internees are confined in the said camp?
4.	How many were injured?
5.	How many required hospital treatment?
6.	What was the cause of the disturbance?

Questions as Orders for Returns
7.	Were possible causes of trouble brought to the attention of the camp commandant by internees, prior to the disturbance?,
8.	What steps are to be taken to remove the causes of disturbances in the future?



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-VENEREAL DISEASE

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has special attention been given to the prevention of venereal diseases among the armed forces?
2.	Are lectures or similar instruction on this subject given to all enlisted persons?
3.	If so, is a check made to ensure that every enlisted person receives one or more lectures or other instruction?
4.	Is literature on this subject provided for all enlisted persons?



NATIONAL FILM BOARD

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What was the total expenditure of the national film board during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942?
2.	What was the total expenditure of the national film board during the present fiscal year to date?
3.	What films have been produced by the national film board since March 31, 1942?
4.	What was the total cost of each such film?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Return tabled.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-FIFTY-MILE BUS TRAVEL REGULATION-HITCH-HIKING

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will consideration be given to abolishing the fifty-mile bus rule as it applies to soldiers in training in Canada or those home on leave?
2.	What is the text of this rule or regulation, why was it enacted and by whom?
3.	Has the hitch-hiking order been revoked or suspended?
4.	If not, does it apply to all the three forces?
5.	Who issued it?



ALIEN ENEMY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the government regulations with respect to enrolment of alien enemies in Canadian universities?
2.	What are the terms or conditions of such educational courses?
3.	Do persons so enrolled receive any military training and do they wear Canadian uniforms?
4.	If so, under what rules and regulations?



USE OF TROOPS FOR SNOW CLEANING IN TORONTO

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Were any soldiers in military district No. 2 requisitioned by civil authority or otherwise, to clean snow from Toronto streets this winter?
2.	If so, how many, from where, and was any consideration or pay given them by the city?
3.	What has been the practice in the past in these matters, and in the last war?
4.	What provision is there in (a) the criminal code, (b) the Militia Act, for civil authority requisitioning the use of military power to aid them?
5.	Who authorized the use of such troops for snow cleaning, and was the service voluntary or compulsory?
6.	Were any troops from Camp Borden used in this work? If so, how many?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.



HEALTH CONDITIONS IN HALIFAX

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	What was the population of Halifax, Nova Scotia, according to the census in the years 1931 and 1941?
2.	What was the estimated population of Halifax in the years 1939 and 1942?
3.	Is the increase in population mainly due to the concentration of persons engaged in essential war services?
4.	Is the government aware of a startling report on health conditions in Halifax, made recently by Dr. D. Bruce Wilson and Dr. W. A. McIntosh of the Rockefeller Foundation?
5.	If so, will the government consider using its powers under the War Measures Act to ensure adequate protection of persons ordered to perform essential war duties in that city?



SHEPARD AIRPORT, ALBERTA

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total cost of the Shepard airport, near Calgary, Alberta?
2.	From whom was this land purchased?
3.	At what price per acre?
4.	How many wells were drilled on this property?
5.	Were any of the wells used and, if not, why were they not used?
6.	Was water piped from Calgary?
7.	If so, (a) at what cost, (b) what does this water cost per year?
8.	What did the sewerage drain cost?
9.	Who owns the land crossed by the sewer line?
10.	What does it cost either for rental or purchase of this land?



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- SAINT JOHN, M.

Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: 1.	Where is the office of the wartime prices and trade board located at Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	Who owns the premises and what rent is paid?
3.	What are the names, permanent addresses, occupations and present duties of all persons employed by the wartime prices and trade board at Saint John, New Brunswick, and what salary does each receive?



Questions as Orders jor Returns



DOMINION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What payments did the dominion treasury make to each of the provinces during each of the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?
2.	On what account and for what amount were each of these payments made?



MINES TAKEN OVER BY DOMINION GOVERNMENT

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	What mines have been taken over by the dominion government, or some agency thereof, since the 1st day of January, A.D. 1942?
2.	Where are they situated?
3.	Upon what terms were such mines taken over?
4.	Which of such mines are being operated and what is the type of product from each mine?



TORPEDOING OP SS &quot;CARIBOU&quot;

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	Was the ferry boat Caribou, which was
torpedoed October 16,	1942, proceeding to
Newfoundland on regular schedule?
2.	What convoy was supplied to this boat at the time of the torpedoing?
3.	Were the lights on the Caribou extinguished at the time it was torpedoed?
4.	What precautions were taken to have lifeboats and rafts available in case of disaster?



FERTILIZER FOR TOBACCO AND POTATO GROWING

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many acres of tobacco were raised in Canada last year?
2.	How many tons of fertilizer were used on this acreage?
3.	How many people were employed in producing the tobacco crop?
4.	Would the fertilizer that was used to produce tobacco be suitable for (a) growing potatoes for dehydration to ship to England,
(b)	for growing sugar beets?
5.	Has Canada a shortage of potatoes for dehydration ?
6.	Was there a shortage of fertilizer in 1942 for the potato crop in the maritime provinces?



TORONTO SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	When did the government of Canada take over from the Dufferin Shipbuilding Company, the property now held by the Toronto Shipbuilding Yards?
2.	What price was paid the Toronto Shipbuilding Company?
3.	What amount was allowed for, (a) the freehold title to lands, (b) leasehold lands,
(c)	machinery, (d) goodwill, (e) government contracts in the course of fulfilment, (f) use of machinery during 1941 and 1942?
4.	To what firm was the contract of paving the yards given?
5.	Did Mr. Franceschini have any financial interest in the company?
'Mr. G. E. L. MacKinnon.]
6.	What was the price received?
7.	When was the work done under such contract?
8.	How many ships have been completed by the Toronto Shipbuilding Company?
9.	How many have been accepted by the government ?
10.	On what dates were deliveries made?
11.	What salaries over $3,000 per annum are being paid by the Toronto Shipbuilding Company and to whom?


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	In what quantity and in what form is cobalt being imported into Canada for refining, from the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia?
2.	How many refineries exist in Canada for refining cobalt?
3.	Where are they located?
4.	By what companies are they owned and operated?
5.	Has a request been received by the government of Canada from the British government for a survey of cobalt ore in Canada?
6.	If so, was such a survey made, and when?
7.	What steps have been taken to ascertain what deposits of cobalt exist in Canada?
8.	What efforts are now being made to mine cobalt in Canada?
9.	To what extent has the Canadian government taken advantage of assistance from the government of the United States in regard to the mining of cobalt in Canada?



MEAFORD, ONT., TANK RANGE

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Why has the construction work on the tank range at Meaford been discontinued?
2.	When is it to be resumed?
3.	What amount has been spent to date on this project?'
4.	What is the estimated cost of the completed project?
5.	Is there a works office being maintained on the property while no work is being done?
6.	Why are tanks being brought back and forth between Borden and Meaford for weekly practice?
7.	Does this serve any purpose that could not be served by leaving tanks at Meaford and transporting gunners to and fro in army trucks instead of tanks?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION

Mr. CHURCH:: .
1.	What was the number of immigrants to Canada from (a) England, (b) Ireland, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales, (e) the United States, (f) continent of Europe, from 1935 to 1942?
2.	How many Canadians have gone to the United States since 1935?
3.	How many from 1900 to 1942 went to the United States, as estimated by the bureau of statistics?
4.	Has the government taken any steps to encourage immigration to Canada from Great Britain after the war, and assisted aid?

Questions as Orders for Returns



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-WINTER TRAINING AND TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What precautions were, or have been taken by the government for the better health, care and comfort of the men and women of His Majesty's forces in Canada necessitated by the present most severe winter in the training camps throughout Canada?
2.	Were fatigue and outside guards or sentry box duties, parades and other out-of-door work curtailed any as a result?
3.	Had the camps adequate hospital and medical staffs and equipment?
4.	Have all leaves been suspended under the transport controller's or other orders until February 28?
5.	Why are trains at weekends provided for civilians and not for soldiers during this period?



SELECTIVE SERVICE-REGISTRATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many persons registered for employment, including those for whom separation notices were sent in by employers, at each of the five regional offices of the department of national selective service, during each of the following months: August, September, October, November, December, 1942, and January, 1943?
2.	How many persons were placed in employment by each of the above five regional offices, during each of the above-named months?
3.	Of those placed in employment by the Winnipeg office, how many were placed within the province of Manitoba, and how many were placed outside the province of Manitoba, during each of the above-named months?



VETERANS GUARD OF CANADA

Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: 1.	What is the monthly, or yearly remuneration to the Veterans Guard of Canada for, (a) salary, (b) board, (c) upkeep, (d) clothing?
2.	Are these allowances paid regularly every fortnight or monthly?
3.	Are the veterans guard entitled to the twenty cents granted to other soldiers?
4.	If so, what is the reason why they have not received same since first of January last?



NATIONAL STEEL CAR CORPORATION-MALTON PLANT

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Has the government taken over the National Steel Car Company's plant at Malton?
2.	If so, what are the arrangements made between the Canadian government and National Steel Car concerning the same?
3.	How much was allowed during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942 for depreciation and accelerated depreciation on, (a) buildings, and (b) machinery?
4.	At what rates were these amounts allowed to the said company on the costs of production of the aeroplanes built and delivered by them?



NATIONAL STEEL CAR CORPORATION-PROFITS

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What profits were made by National Steel Company to the date the government assumed management of the plant?
2.	Does this profit include any portions of the amounts allowed for depreciation or accelerated depreciation?
3.	What arrangements, if any, have been made by the government for the post-war use or salvage of this plant at Malton?
4.	What excess profits taxes have been paid by National Steel Car in respect to its Malton plant?



NOORDUYN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What capital did the Noorduyn Aircraft Corporation of Montreal have when the government placed the first contract with them?
2.	Who owned the property in which they operated?
_ 3. Was any sales commission or compensation in lieu thereof paid to any person?
4.	Did the government make any arrangement with the Noorduyn Company acquiescing in payment of sales commission or any amount in lieu thereof to any person?
5.	If so, what was the arrangement?
6.	What capital assistance has the government given Noorduyn Company to date?


Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What assistance, if any, has the government given Noorduyn Aircraft Corporation towards its securing bank or other loans?
2.	When was such assistance given? Have such loans or credits been paid off?
3.	What is the expenditure to date by the government on tools, machinery and equipment for this corporation?
4.	What operative capital has the government given this company?



DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many new departments of government have been created since June, 1939, (a) give names of each; (b) how many new buildings have been built to house these departments;
(c) how much office space did these provide;
(d) what did these buildings cost; (e) how many old buildings have been purchased or leased to provide such accommodation and what amount of office space has been provided for each department respectively; (f) what was the cost of each of the buildings purchased?
2.	Considering the great congestion of living space in Ottawa, has the government decentralized any of these departments and, if so, which?
3.	Could some of these departments of government function in some other city equally well if office space could be procured or buildings erected there?
4.	Has the government considered acquiring and completing the building on the northwest corner of Bay and Yonge streets, Toronto?
5.	Could this not be quickly completed to house some department of government and thus relieve congestion in Ottawa?
Motions for Papers

6.	Has the government considered the advisability of adopting the system of decentralization of government departments that has taken place in Washington and London, (a) if not, why not?



CANADIAN SHIPPING BOARD

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian
shipping board, under the trade and commerce department?	.
2.	Who are its chief officers and where did they reside since the war began?
3.	What office does Mr. MacDonald hold, or has he held, on this board as an official, and what offices has he held in the Department of Trade and Commerce, where, and what is his salary and other allowances?
4.	Was he ever secretary of the board in charge of sailings from the Atlantic and Pacific ports ?
5.	Is he any relative whatever of Mr. Ristelhueber, who was Vichy minister here? If so, what relation?
6.	What various positions has Mr. MacDonald held in the department since the war began?
7.	Is he a returned soldier, and has he any experience or training in shipping or navy affairs?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Howard Charles Green: For a copy of all orders in council, letters and other documents providing for or dealing with the setting up of a Canada-United States committee for planning the development of northern British Columbia, Yukon Territory *and Alaska.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are no *orders in council. I should think that would dispose of the motion.


Howard Charles Green: I am also asking for letters and other documents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
pleased to give my hon. friend a general statement on the matter at a subsequent sitting, but I do. not think there are letters or documents that could be produced.


Howard Charles Green: Then I understand that the Prime Minister will give the house a statement in regard to this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, with
pleasure.
Motion dropped.



REPORT ON COBALT, LORRAINE AND GOWGANDA- ARSENICAL ORES

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: For a copy of a report made on or about the end of October, 1942, by John A. Reid, M.E.,
{Mr. Bruce. 1
Ontario, government mining engineer, .to the metal controller on arsenical ores at Cobalt, Lorrain and Gowganda.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am informed that the report in question is to be published by the government of Ontario. I am told that it is now in the proof reading stage and will be out shortly. Of course the proper place for the hon. member to apply for a copy of the report is not to this government but to the government of Ontario.
Motion dropped.



POSTAL SERVICE-LONDON &quot;ECHO&quot;

Joseph William Noseworthy: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department, or any official thereof and the proprietors, officials or any agents of the London Echo from January 1, 1937, to the present date.



GIMLI, MAN., AIRPORT

Mr. CLEAVER:: For (a) a list of names of land owners, (b) complete detailed particulars of purchase prices paid for lands acquired, (c) a copy of the report of the independent valuator, J. J. Swanson & Company, Winnipeg, (d) a copy of the report of the C.N.R. right of way agent at Winnipeg, forwarding or accompanying independent valuators report, (e) a copy of all statutory declarations recently procured from individual owners of land, showing owner-cost of lands, in connection with the land purchased for the airport at Gimli, Manitoba.



NORTH PACIFIC AREA


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked if I would give him a statement with regard to the matter referred to in a motion for correspondence respecting joint Canada-United States study of the North Pacific area-Alaska, Yukon territory, and northern British Columbia. I promised I would. I am happy to say I have the statement now. I had been anticipating giving the house a statement, but unfortunately did not have it with me and have just this moment received it.
The joint Canada-United States study of the north Pacific area announced on January 25, 1943, was initiated by joint economic committees of Canada and the United States. These committees were established on June 20, 1941, as a result of discussions between the governments of Canada and the United States. It was agreed:

North Pacific Area
. . . that each government will appoint a committee to meet with a committee appointed by the other and that these committees shall severally and jointly study and report to their respective governments on the possibility of-
1.	Effecting a more economic, more efficient and more coordinated utilization of the combined resources of the two countries in the production of defence requirements, to the extent that this is not now being done, and
2.	Reducing the probable post-war economic dislocation consequent upon the changes which the economy in each country is presently undergoing.
The Canadian section of the joint committee was appointed on June 20, 1941, by order in council No. 4500. The joint study of the North Pacific area sponsored by the committees falls squarely within the second part of their terms of reference. No orders in council have been passed concerning this study project and no commitments respecting it have been entered into between the two governments.
The study will be conducted under the supervision of the joint economic committees. No special committee has been set up for this purpose.
The area to be studied includes Alaska, Yukon territory and northern British Columbia. The object is to study the possibilities for the economic development of the region for the benefit of the two countries and for the welfare of the inhabitants of the area.
The study is being carried on by officials of the two governments with the assistance of officials of the government of British Columbia. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines and Resources, Ottawa, and James C. Rettie, of the Portland office of the National Resources Planning Board, have been appointed to organize and direct the study. The immediate purpose is simply to gather basic information and to develop proposals for the consideration of the joint economic committee. On the basis of this information the committee may make recommendations to the two governments regarding desirable measures of economic cooperation for the future development of the region.


Howard Charles Green: Have any recommendations yet been made by the committee? Has the government of British Columbia a representative on the committee, and if not, does the Prime Minister not think it would be wise to have a representative of the provincial government added to the committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are no recommendations up to the present time; and the government of British Columbia has been communicated with and the members of the committee are in touch with the British Columbia government with respect to any representations which that government may
wish to make. Whether it is a desirable thing to have a member of the committee from the government of British Columbia, I cannot say at the moment. I have no doubt that if the United States representative and the Canadian representative on the committee think it desirable, they will ask for that addition.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister knows of no objection to having as a member of the committee a representative of the province of British Columbia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand. I am leaving it to the two members of the committee to express their view in the first instance. I would wish to be guided in. part by that.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the Prime Minister not think that the operation of the committee comprising representatives of the United States and Canada to survey the resources of northern British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska, will affect the work of our own reconstruction and rehabilitation committee, since in each case natural resources are being dealt with?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. My reply to my hon. friend would be that I think each would be toward the other rendering a complementary service. There would be cooperation each with the other, not interference with each other. Doctor McIntosh, who is on the one committee to which I have referred, has also a certain supervision of the work of the committee on reconstruction.



INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asked a question last week with respect to a return to the gold standard and international currency, and inquired whether I would bring down any correspondence there might be with the British government or the government of the United States on the matter. I said I would have to ascertain, first, whether there was correspondence and, second, whether either of the governments or both would be agreeable to having it tabled. I did not at the time think there was any correspondence, and I find I was quite right in that regard. The information I am in a position to give is that there has been no exchange of correspondence. Informal discussions on post-war economic and financial questions have taken place from time to time between Canadian officials and experts from the United Kingdom
International Currency

and the United States, and these discussions will doubtless continue. No commitments have been made by the Canadian government, and no commitments are likely to be made in the near future.


Mr. QUELCH:: Can the Prime Minister assure the house that no commitments will be made regarding the restoration of the gold standard, or tying our currency to an international currency of gold, without first referring the matter to the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to be careful about making commitments, but I think I am pretty safe in saying to my hon. friend that no commitments will be made on this particular matter without the house having some advance notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Monday the 22nd February, 1943, to the end of the present session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all -other business except introduction of bills, -questions by members and notices of motions for [DOT]the production of papers.
He said:	Hon. members will recognize
'that this motion is identical with one which has been moved at previous sessions of this house since the beginning of this war, and, I might say, is identical in its purpose and intent with similar motions which were moved in this House of Commons at the time of the last war. When Sir Robert Borden's government was in office it was felt desirable that the attention of the house should be given with as much concentration as possible to matters pertaining to the war and with as little diversion from that main purpose as possible. It was thought inadvisable for that reason to have private members' motions occupy the time of what was known as a war session of parliament.
I may say that not only has that practice been followed in this parliament, it has been followed also at Westminster, both in this war and in the last one. In the previous war private members' motions were allowed to stand over until after government business had been fully attended to. During the period of this war both Mr. Chamberlain when he was .prime minister and Mr. Churchill as prime minister have introduced similar motions at .the different sessions.
.On one or two occasions since the house -opened, I have referred to the importance of
I Mr. Mackenzie King.l
the house giving its time as exclusively as it could to the major business of the session, namely, the country's war effort and the matters immediately pertaining thereto. I would say that there are many reasons which make this procedure more or less obviously imperative. In the first place, there is the time of the house itself to be considered and which must not be diverted more than is necessary from the large questions immediately related to the war. There is also the time of the ministers. They would be obliged to remain in the house while resolutions were being called and particular resolutions were being discussed, obliged to prepare themselves in advance on subjects some of which are more or less, if not in large part, of academic interest or on subjects that might give rise to a good deal in the way of political discussion. A further consideration at this time is the services that are being rendered by members of the public service.
They are all, at least those who are at the head of departments, more or less overburdened with the additional work which has been thrown on their shoulders at this time of war. If they were also obliged to assist in the preparation of information to be used in debate on private members' resolutions, their task would be considerably augmented. I would put as of first importance the impression that would be created throughout the country if our newspapers from week to week were to record that we had had a discussion in this parliament occupying a day on some question such for example as the return to the gold standard or on some of the many other matters that appear in the names of private members.
This motion does not preclude the government at some later stage, if it is thought advisable, from taking up private members' motions; it simply postpones their consideration. As a matter of fact this motion does not go as far as the one that has been passed in the British house. The one at Westminster does not allow the appearance on the order paper of public bills other than those introduced by the government itself.
I think I need not say more on this question. I want to assure private members that there is no desire whatever on the part of the government to interfere in any way with their privileges or to abridge their rights in any way. I would feel that hon. members themselves, for the most part if not in entirety, will agree with the government that it is desirable, this year even more than in preceding years, that this House of Commons should give as much of its undivided attention as is possible to the measures that relate immediately to the war.

Precedence of Government Motions
Mr. M J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that while I have no objections - I am speaking as a private member-to the government taking the time that is necessary to discuss government business, I do want to register a protest lest this become a part of our procedure. Perhaps the problem could be met by having an agreement in the house that the government may take private members' days when urgent business so requires, but will leave us other private members' days when business is not so urgent. There are occasions when government business lags to some extent, and at such times it seems to me that private members' days should be permitted.
The Prime Minister cited the example of Westminster. May I remind him that the procedure at Westminster is somewhat different. They have opportunities to bring problems to the attention of the government and for brief discussion in the house on the motion for adjournment; we do not have that privilege. With regard to questions, you, sir, are very careful to compel private members to place them on the order paper. At Westminster an hour is given to questions every day. During this period many supplementary questions are asked and problems are presented to the government which really are not properly questions to be answered. In this way many matters are brought before the government by private members.
The order paper contains many important resolutions placed there by private members. Because I anticipated this motion I did not place on the order paper one that I had in mind. Hon. members consider these to be worth while, and it is our opinion that they are not merely of academic interest. We have such subject matters as pensions for widows of enlisted men of the great war; soldiers' life insurance; old age pensions; prairie farm rehabilitation and irrigation; the single transferable vote; fuel resources; farm labour shortage; the development of mineral resources; irrigation projects; wheat; power development; housing and slum clearance; soldier land settlement; agricultural commodity marketing boards; measures for rehabilitation, and so on. As I say, these topics are not of academic interest alone; they are of great public interest and give hon. members an opportunity of doing what there are few opportunities to do, namely, placing before the house the point of view not only of the member but of the people with whom he is in contact.
While I realize the necessity under war conditions of utilizing some private members' days for other pressing purposes, I wish the motion had been to the effect that the government should be empowered to take private members' days when necessary, leaving us with at least the skeleton if not the reality of private members' days.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to this motion, which has the effect of doing away entirely with private members' days for the remainder of this session. While it is true that the government may introduce a motion later to permit the consideration of private members' resolutions, as a result of this present motion no opportunity will be given to any member of this house to use one of his most important prerogatives, namely, the private members' day.
I realize that everything connected with the war should be given precedence at this time, and there is no group more desirous and more cooperative in that regard than His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But this motion, coming up as it does year after year, is assuming the position of a precedent. I desire to register a protest against what I believe to be an unfair invasion of the right of the private member in this house. I admit the necessity for the precedence of war business and I have shown a willingness to cooperate, but I have noticed one thing in this parliament that is strange. When we and the empire are fighting for the survival of our political and parliamentary institutions, paradoxically enough that is the time when our rights are in many cases being whittled down, with the excuse that the needs of the war make it necessary. Through this motion the Prime Minister gives the members of the house an opportunity to place before him and the government, and through them before the country, a situation which to-day is becoming altogether too prevalent, namely, the loss of the legislative function of this house. Why? -Men and women all over this dominion are asking. Why the sense of frustration which appears to have overwhelmed the members of this house? Why is it, they ask, that the things that should be done are not being done? Why is it that nine-tenths of the vital legislation affecting the welfare of the people of Canada, aside from the exigencies of war and the needs of the moment, is being passed by controllers, administrators and other officials?

Precedence oj Government Motions
The present situation is that often we in parliament have to read the newspapers or listen to the radio to learn of important changes that are taking place in the economic set-up of this dominion. Regulations are being passed day by day which could and should be considered by this parliament, many of them resulting in an unnecessary interference with private rights and too often substituting the caprice of individual controllers for the considered judgment of the members of the House of Commons. Too often our legislative function is overriden by the executive through the passage of orders in council, increasing in volume year by year, until to-day statutes are being abrogated, amended and suspended by order in council- something that is contrary to the principles of representative government for which the Prime Minister has so long contended. It is not altogether confined to the war period; for in 1936, long before the outbreak of this war, the present government suspended the operation of a statute passed by this parliament, the wheat board act, simply by means of an order in council.
Since the war began, parliament has gradually receded in importance until now the position is such that there is little justification for the calling together of parliament, except that the government requires supply and to that end requires to impose taxation. But for purposes other than that, just look at the record on the statute book of last year and then compare it with the booklets which are being issued containing the record of the orders in council which are being passed-and I commend their issuance. Take out from the statute book divorce and other non-vital legislation and you will find that at the present time controllers control and the House of Commons has become an institution where members make speeches but where legislation no longer rests with the representatives of the people.
I ask the Prime Minister-for I know his record in espousing the rights of parliament throughout the years: can there be liberty in this land when controllers have the power to pass and are passing regulations which deny equality under the law, which result in discrimination between members of a class, which deny the right of access to the courts which should be enjoyed by all British subjects and is enjoyed to-day by the people of Great Britain? Even our greatest right- the right of habeas corpus, a right prized by all who appreciate what British justice means- has _ 'been done away with, not by act of parliament, but by one of the regulations.
 .
We have come to a position in this country -I do not want to be facetious about it- where there are so many regulations which interfere with economic laws, which overlap one another, which cannot be read consistently one with the other, and which are so impossible even for members of parliament to interpret, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has seen fit to send letters to members of the house to explain, for instance, the rental regulations and to interpret them so that we in turn may be able to interpret to the people of Canada what the law now is as passed by controllers.
I think the time has arrived, Mr. Speaker, when we as members of this house, regardless of political persuasion, should insist on our right and privilege as members of parliament to legislate for the people of Canada, subject of course to the exception that in the interval between sessions circumstances may arise which require orders in council to be passed. Above all I do object to the infringement of economic rights, the interference with the rights of classes by orders in council while parliament is sitting. Surely the government, with its overwhelming majority in the house, can trust the members of parliament to consider legislation that is beneficial and necessary and be assured that it will be passed. On the one hand we are fighting-our men and those who are serving in the forces-for the survival of parliamentary institutions, and I think that we as members of parliament, prizing the responsibility and honour that is ours, have the right to say to the government that it has gone far enough along the road of destroying the rights of parliamentary government in this country and further it shall not go.
Our next duty is to scrutinize the accounts, to assure the people of Canada that - the money we vote will be expended fairly and honestly and secure the greatest possible results. Billions we vote and billions are expended; but what examination is there by parliament of the expenditures that are being made? The only body that we have set up for the purpose is the war expenditures committee. We have no opportunity in this chamber to examine the accounts. The estimates come down during the last week or ten days of the session and millions and tens of millions of dollars are voted in a few days without adequate consideration. When we receive the auditor general's report there is no way of breaking down the large figures which it contains.
The war expenditures committee has looked into some expenditures. I do not know exactly how many contracts have been

Precedence of Government Motions
awarded, but the number must be far in excess of 100,000. There were 86,000 last year. The war expenditures committee has been sitting throughout the period between sessions and has devoted itself to its task. I know the work of that committee; I was on it. You cannot touch the fringe in an investigation by that committee. We are supposed to scrutinize the accounts as members of parliament. The committee investigates behind closed doors; it scrutinizes behind closed doors such accounts as come before it; and then, when the matter comes before parliament, the members who comprise the committee have their lips sealed in silence. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we, in allowing that condition to prevail, are discharging our responsibilities. Secrecy might be justified on the ground that to reveal the facts as they are would injure the war effort of this nation and be of benefit to the enemy. I can see no reason why their colleagues cannot be given such information in connection with overexpenditure as may come to the knowledge of the committee.
Secrecy does but one thing under these circumstances. It gives to those who would be wrongdoers, who deal with the government of Canada, through its manifold relations and departments, a false sense of security. I am not making a partisan speech. I am trying to analyse the position of members of .this parliament; for on every hand we are criticized that we are not discharging the responsibilities that are ours at this time.
As members we can secure information by asking questions. We have that opportunity on the order paper. I am not saying it is intentional, but it certainly is a coincidence, that some of the questions asked last session, dealing in the main with the situation regarding man-power, remained on the order paper long after they should have been answered. Some of them were directed as returns. Weeks and months passed by before the answers were forthcoming. Orders for returns are held up. Only last week one of the ministers-he is in the house; if he were not I would not have referred to this matter-gave an answer to a question which indicated an attitude of mind that goes much farther than any minister has gone heretofore. On February 15 the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was asked, these questions, as reported at page 392 of Hansard. The questions were asked by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe):
1. Has the government taken any steps to prevent irregularities discovered in certain war industries since the beginning of the war?
The material word there is " discovered." The minister's answer was, yes. The second question was:
Has the government employed the services of chartered accountants to inquire into the operations of such companies?
The material word there is " such." The answer was, yes. The third question was:
If so, (a) when, (b) in connection with what companies, (c) with what results?
The answers admit that investigations have taken place. The answers admit that irregularities have been discovered. The answer given by the minister to the third question is this:
It is not in the public interest to give the information.
Is it not in the public interest, when the responsibility rests upon the members of this house to scrutinize expenditures, that information which is known to the government should be given to the members of this house and should not be denied them? And that answer was accepted without protest by the members of the house. We are bound under the rules by the answer that it is not in the public interest to answer. Once the answer is given no further investigation can take place so far as that question is concerned.
If we recognize the right of any member of the government to give us that answer in regard to the important question of the right of parliament to investigate expenditures, then we endanger the existence of the parliamentary system that we believe in. There are three rights-the right to legislate, the right to investigate, the right to examine. All those rights, even from the casual examination I have made, have been abrogated during the period of this parliament. I feel that members irrespective of party have had the same experience, and that we must therefore in this house, as private members, assert our rights to maintain for parliament the legislative function except in so far as the exigencies of war between sessions demand its alteration. We have a right to full and prompt information. In no other way can we hope to maintain the prestige of parliament.
There is a feeling of frustration among members which I think is general in the house. It is not lack of interest on the part of members. As to those who say that members of parliament do not work, I should like them to come to Ottawa and see the industry that is displayed by members of this house both inside and outside the house. We are denied the opportunity to do the things we were sent here to do. Too many people believe, and it is not good for public morale, that parliament is stagnant in its enterprise,

Precedence oj Government Motions
sterile in its ideas, and complacent when action is demanded. And, what is worse, they believe that the decisions of caucus are more important in the determination of Canada's policy than are debates in the House of Commons. We as members of this parliament must reassert the right of parliament to do more than vote supply.
So far as private members' days are concerned, the Prime Minister says, properly, that precedence must be given to matters of importance to the war. He mentioned that during the last war the same motion was introduced in the Canadian House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A similar
motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, pardon me; a similar motion. That is true. But in every session of parliament during the last war, private members had their days, and debated the resolutions that they had on the order paper. In 1917 private members debated such matters as pensions fluctuating in accordance with the fluctuations of prices; free entry of tractors; grants to science; the fuel situation, et cetera. In the war parliament one of the rights Sir Robert Borden endeavoured to uphold was the right of private members to express themselves as they have the opportunity to do only in untrammelled debate on their own resolutions on private members' days.
Even in 1918 it was not until March 26 that a resolution was introduced by the Prime Minister granting precedence to government business on two days in the week, Tuesday and Thursday, and it was not until about one month later, April 29, that the precedence was given to all government business. It is a singular circumstance that March 26, 1918, when private members' days were in part abridged, was one of the darkest days in our history, but even at that time the government recognized the rights of private members. A reading of Hansard of that time shows that if the right to private members' days had been interfered with or had been abrogated, there would have been strong criticism from the members of the then opposition.
The Prime Minister stated that in Great Britain they have had no private members' days since the war began. That is correct, but as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) explained, they have a right that we have not. To-day the questions before the orders of the day, and the answers were most interesting. But the ruling ordinarily is, and properly so, that you may ask only questions of current importance and

immediate interest, and you cannot continue to examine the minister questioned after his answer is given. In Great Britain a system prevails that I suggest we could adopt here and thus do away with the necessity for private members' days, giving to private members the same opportunity they would have under a resolution-that is that each day an opportunity be given for an hour or so to ask questions of the ministers of the crown in regard to their several departments, and to follow up the answers given with further questions. At Westminster private members have the opportunity of presenting their views to the government on such days as questions are permitted.
To-day Britain's parliament is at its highest level in dignity and importance and prestige. Britain's parliament epitomizes the national will, the national determination and national leadership. I make the appeal that we in this parliament individually endeavour to elevate the prestige of parliament by assuring the people of Canada that we are discharging our responsibilities, and that we have not been derelict in discharging them. The restoration of the prestige of this parliament is a vital issue.
A great deal of the criticism of parliament that one hears is not merited; none the less it exists. How are we to restore the prestige of parliament? Certainly not by formal abdication of any of our historic rights, but rather by an assertion of the independence of members of this house and a determination on the part of private members that a halt be called to the trend that is altogether too noticeable in Canada, and is increasing, almost pyramiding, as we advance through the time of the war, in detracting or subtracting from the rights of the institution of parliament. We in this parliament must put a stop to any further abdication of our rights; for experience has shown that such abdication, though voluntary, may become permanent. If we in this parliament in war time fail to assert and uphold the great principles of responsible government, the principles for which we fight, we stand in danger of losing some of these rights when peace comes.
If the Prime Minister could see his way to altering the resolution so that on the conclusion of necessary w'ar business an opportunity will be given to private members to assert their prerogative rights, this debate and the few remarks I have made would prove to have been worth while. I repeat that I speak in no partisan sense but with a desire to contribute whatever I can to raising the stature and prestige of parliament in time of war and to improving the morale of the Canadian people;

Precedence of Government Motions
for if the Canadian people realize that we are discharging our responsibility it will strengthen their determination to discharge theirs.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is making too sweeping a suggestion when in this fourth year of the war he proposes to sweep away the right of the ordinary member to express the views of his constituency as freely as he may wish to express them. I am told that in England the House of Commons sits continuously. I fail to see why the problems with which Canada has to deal, concerning Canada, should be any less difficult to solve than the problems with which Britain has to deal; and how we can expect to keep in close contact with the progress of affairs in Canada by sitting for only five or six months, while the British house sits throughout the year, I think requires a good deal of explanation.
I know it will be urged that we just have not the time to do all the things we wish to do. The Prime Minister says in effect: Let us get on with the war; let us keep all our attention on the war. I think everyone in this house is anxious to keep his attention on the war and to do everything necessary to further the war effort, but I believe we are falling into a serious error by neglecting what is to happen after the war. Had the Anglo-Saxon race devoted its attention a little more assiduously, in the five years preceding the war, to the matter of preparing for war, we should not have been in the precarious position we occupied during the last two or three years, and we should not be even now in such danger of defeat. In this particular age there is more danger in peace than in war. Everywhere I see indications that there are men who are designing to take away the liberties of mankind. There may be those who will laugh off that idea, but the laugh will be on the other side of their faces by and by, when they find that in their supineness they have allowed precious liberties to be filched away from them. The problems which will confront us after the armistice is signed will be far more serious in every respect than the problems which confront us now; yet up to the present time there has been hardly a half hour devoted to a discussion in this house of the problems of peace. It may be asked, how are we to know what will be the conditions confronting us when peace does come? My reply is, how were we to know what conditions would confront us after war was declared? Surely he who completely neglected provision for the war would have been well nigh a traitor to his country; and I say that those men in this
house who sit on the government benches and neglect adequate preparation for the peace are in grave danger of becoming traitors to their country.
What are we going to do about it? I fail to see how we can do anything by closing this parliament early and going home. If this parliament really governs this country; if this is really a democracy, surely we should be about the business of discussing and governing. Let me point out several of the deficiencies which are apparent to me in the conduct of our affairs. I believe this is my eighth year here, and I should like to mention some of the things on which I believe we are going wrong.
While the war is proceeding I find no means whatsoever by which members of this house may review the rulings of the various boards that infest and afflict this country. Surely if anyone should review those rules and amend or commend them, as may be found desirable, it should be the members of this house; and if the members of this house do not do it, how is it ever to be done? This parliament must devise a method of checking up on the rulings of the various boards whose actions in many cases lead me to suspect that they consist largely of irresponsible people. Sometimes I fear we have a whole group of doctrinaire playboys at work on some of these boards, drunk with the power they have been given. Yet this house has no way of checking or reviewing what is going on, or of exercising influence to prevent abuses from taking place.
Here is something else which confounds me. We have several commissions in this country, as for example the railway commission. On one occasion I ventured to suggest that the board of transport commissioners, as it is now called, was hardly conducting affairs as it ought, and I was given the impression that I had stepped into a sanctum sanctorum, a place forbidden, something like this "other place" we cannot talk about in this house. And while I am on that I want to say that I think it is an outrage that members of this house cannot refer with perfect freedom to that other chamber, and discuss what is going on there; and it seems to me that if members of this house cannot be fully informed concerning the operation of the various commissions in this country, and cannot exercise a controlling hand over them, then we have abdicated a power which parliament should possess. Yet we simply cannot afford the time to discuss any matters at all here except those which the government consider fit for us to discuss. We are treated as children, little boys who must not know too much. We may do naugthy things if we know too much. We
596	COMMONS
Precedence oj Government Motions
are not mature, we members of parliament. And as for the idea of letting the ordinary common man in Canada know about these important things which will affect every aspect of his life for the next generation, why, that would never do! He is not mature; he is not grown up or capable of forming sound judgment. How nonsensical that sounds; and all this talk about things not being in the public interest; all this suppression of public discussion in the house would seem to indicate that hon. members are not qualified to help govern this country, or that the people who sent us here are not qualified to form their own opinions.
Then there is another matter which ought to be remedied at once. There were provincial rights allowed for in the British North America Act. A good many people in Canada seem to be getting the idea that the provinces were supposed to cease to exist about the time they joined confederation. They were sovereign states before they joined, but since that time it seems to have been the consistent policy of Ottawa to weaken and destroy the rights of the provinces. Now I ask, where should the autonomy and the rights of the provinces be defended and carefully safeguarded if not in this house? Hon. members come from the various provinces, yet how often do we hear in this chamber a discussion concerning the preservation of provincial rights. It seems to me this matter ought to be given the fullest and most serious discussion. If we have arrived at a point in our history when it is unsafe to allow sovereign states, as the provinces were before they joined confederation, to exercise a full share in the governing of this country, then we all ought to know that that is so and we should be told why it is so. My own opinion is that democracy in Canada will be best preserved by full recognition of provincial rights.
I should like to see these matters discussed in the house. We have no opportunity to do it. We have now been at war three years and are into the fourth year, and during that time there have been things done with respect to the provinces which have rendered them in many respects impotent. We have seen great provinces practically taken out into the woodshed and spanked for attempting to exercise the powers which were conferred upon them by the British North America Act; and what recourse have they? Only to their own individual protests. And this house, where their cause should be defended, is not giving any time for the defence of their rights.
We have a most regrettable example within the last two or three days-the outburst from

Ontario. It may be supposed that there is no fire where all the smoke is, but I am inclined to think that there is plenty of fire. We ought to be going into these matters to protect provincial autonomy, but how are we going to do it if we are to be deprived of the right of free discussion here? The only opportunity we have is in the debate on the speech from the throne and in the budget debate.	*
I should like to refer a little further to this question of "not in the public interest". I have heard that expression until it positively nauseates me. I know it is used in Great Britain, and it is used there far too freely. "Not irr the public interest!" Imagine anything more disgusting to be said to a group of members of parliament. It may be that there are many things in the conduct of a nation's affairs which it is not advisable to make generally known throughout the country. But surely there should be provision for secret sessions, or for conferences of one kind or another, as a result of which all the essential facts pertaining to this country could be made known to every member of this house; and if it be found that any hon. member is unworthy of the trust which is placed upon him, unfit for the responsibility he carries, let him be dealt with as his constituency may see fit. But certainly all facts should be known by the members,, or at least by the leaders, so that they can be given to the members.
We in Canada do not know where we are-now. The ordinary individual throughout the country simply does not know what the position is, and the majority of the members of this house do not know. The second answer that the Prime Minister gave to the questions regarding the gold standard asked by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch)-was much more satisfactory than the first. But we read of proposals of federal union and "union now"; we hear an insistent propaganda about "united nations". I wonder why we are called "the united nations" this time, instead of "the allies", as in the last war. What does all this mean? Are we to imagine that it is accidental? What lies behind the statements of Sir Kingsley Wood with regard to an international currency and several other things? Does he just talk in his sleep when he makes remarks of that sort? What does all this mean? What do we in this house know about it? The average run of us knows pretty nearly nothing, which causes us to suspect that something pretty unsuitable is being prepared for us, something so unsavoury and unsightly that the men who are

Precedence oj Government Motions
conceiving it dare not allow it to be generally known. We see articles in the Readers' Digest and other publications which indicate what is in the minds of some of the men who are prominent in the conduct of our affairs.
I say that if we are worthy of the name of members of parliament we ought to know .about these matters. How are we to learn about them if we have not freedom of discussion? I want to know something about where we are going. Really we do not know what we are doing, because the kind of thing we bear from the government benches, and what we learn when we get out in the country, where things are actually taking place, seem to be altogether different. The whole result is to fill us with anxiety, because we are not taken into confidence and given to understand where we are going. Even though we cannot foresee what will happen day by day so far as the war is concerned, we could at least be told at what we are aiming.
I contend also that the various constituencies have a right to have their views expressed, and we should have some private members' days in order that that can be done. I suggest to the Prime Minister that some such plan as this might be worked out. I do not intend to go into details; but why not set a week, say in every three, four, or five weeks, in which the private member would have the opportunity of expressing himself? That would be playing square with the members. If we were unable to finish government business by the time at which it was desired to adjourn, the time could be extended. Why not have a temporary modification of our rules so that while private members are discussing resolutions and other matters the length of time they are permitted to speak would be reduced? An agreement might be reached by bon. members that, upon resolutions other than government business, no member could speak more than twenty minutes or perhaps ten minutes. I am certain that if we were to go to work on the problem with good will, with the desire to make our proceedings here efficient and satisfactory, we could solve this difficulty.
I have said a little more, probably, than I intended, but I think I have made it clear that I am far from satisfied regarding this matter of dispensing with private members' days. I believe this is the first occasion on which I have spoken at length on this topic, but my wrath has been accumulating during the years. I did not object to our rights being suspended for one year or two years, but when it begins to look as though the system will continue for a decade, it is high time we took account of ourselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From the tenor of the
remarks which have been made this afternoon,
I gather that, while the leaders of the different parties have each felt that they must say something about preserving the rights of hon. members, they are more or less in accord with the government giving precedence to government business, at least for a time. That, after all, is the extent of the motion which I have moved this afternoon and which reads:
That on and after Monday the 22nd February, 1943, to the end of the present session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
I am simply asking for precedence in the matter of the most important business of the country, which is the government measures relating to the war. If those measures are discussed adequately before too many months go by I see no reason why we could not make arrangements to set apart a day or two for some of the motions that appear in the names of private members and give hon. members an opportunity to discuss them. I stated at the beginning of last session that that privilege might be granted before the end of the session, but by the time we had reached the end of the session-we had had six months of it-I think most hon. members were more anxious to get back to their constituencies than they were to sit here to discuss private members' resolutions. The house is at all times master of its own business and this year will be no exception in that particular.
The government must take account of the world situation as it sees it. My. hon. friend suggests that we fix two or three days each month, but those two or three days might happen to be the worst days that our country may experience as matters may develop in the course of this war. If then we had set apart those particular days for a discussion of private members' resolutions the government would be held at fault for not having had a clearer vision of what was likely to take place at a time like the present.
I can assure hon. members that so far as the government's desire to get ahead with public business is concerned, that rises from a very deep sense of the seriousness of the world situation as it has developed at this time. I doubt if any of us have begun to appreciate the ordeal which this country and our armed forces may have to pass through before this year is out. So far as members of the government are concerned we are anxious that before we reach a period when our minds as well as our hearts may be filled with suffering we shall get through some of the large financial
598	COMMONS
Precedence of Government Motions
and other measures which ought to be passed as rapidly as possible. That is the reason for desiring to give precedence for government business at this time.
With respect to private members' resolutions and their relating to matters of academic interest, I did not say that all were of academic interest; I said that some were. My hon. friend, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), mentioned some of the matters covered by the private members' resolutions; he referred to rehabilitation, soldiers' pensions and other subjects. There will be ample opportunity during this session, as there has been in other sessions, to discuss these matters. We are going to have a special committee this year, as we had last year, on rehabilitation and reconstruction. Surely when the report of that committee is before us or when the committee is dealing with the problems referred to it there will be opportunity for members interested in that subject to see that their views are amply presented.
My hon. friend referred to wheat. Already during the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne there has been considerable discussion of matters pertaining to wheat. Another subject referred to was labour supply. A good part of the debate has also related to labour supply questions. This house has already discussed in some measure almost every one of the subjects that appear under private members' resolutions; not all, but a great many of them.
Let me go a step further. It is very easy to say (hat hon. members do not get a chance to discuss this, or that they do not get a chance to discuss that, or like my hon. friend, the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Blackmore), to say that we do not know where we are, we do not know where we are going and we do not know where we came from. May I say to my hon. friend that those are more theological than political problems.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not ask where we came from.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Thomas Miller Bell: The right hon. gentleman has used the phrase "in secret". Is there any difference so far as hon. members are concerned between sitting in secret and sitting in camera?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is probably my loose way of speaking; in camera would be the correct expression.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is there not a difference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I still would
have to look into that. In my own mind a secret session is a session in camera; if one is sitting in camera or sitting in secret, it conveys the same idea to me. I have no doubt that there is a shade of difference between the two, but my hon. friend will appreciate that my main point is that it is possible to obtain full information in camera, or at a secret meeting, when it would not be if the inquiry were held in the open.
If in the course of those investigations which are held in camera it is found that there is some transaction which will not stand the light of day and it is in the interests of the country to have it exposed, there is the public accounts committee before which anything can be brought which reflects upon expenditures made by the state, and there the fullest information can be brought out. There are no restrictions on that right. Let me make that perfectly clear. All these statements that the government is hiding this and hiding that-that there are transactions here and transactions there concerning which the members cannot get information-charges that the government is doing things secretly and clandestinely and1 preventing the public , from having full information-all this comes- to naught so long as we have a public accounts committee and so long as members are free to call that committee together and to have referred any question of wrongful expenditure which they wish to have investigated before that committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Suppose that in the course of the proceedings of one of the subcommittees of the war expenditures committee a member becomes aware of a state of affairs which he believes should be brought to the attention of parliament, and that bringing it before parliament would not in any way benefit the enemy. Is that member permitted to refer to that evidence to this house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand. It all depends on the evidence. There are some things which in the opinion of one person might at a time of war do no injury to the country as a whole if made public, while others might feel that a statement made on that particular matter might do a great deal of harm at a particular time. May I say this, that no government in the world has had the same experience in dealing with war expenditures as the British government, and when our government was called upon to form a committee to deal with war expenditures we felt that we could not do a wiser thing than to follow as closely as we could the procedure that was adopted at Westminster. In all particulars we have done that. The procedure followed at Westminster, with the agreement of all parties, has been followed here, realizing that it has worked out in a way that will protect the public interest and not lead, on the one side, to information not being disclosed which should be disclosed, and on the other, to things being disclosed which should not be disclosed. My hon. friend has been on the war expenditures committee, and he knows that there may be some things that are, let us say, wrong. The whole purpose of having the committee formed was just for that. No member of parliament-I do not care which side of the house he is on-is going to learn of something with respect to war expenditures that is contrary to the public interest and then try to conceal that thing; but I think every member will try to see that the right way and the right time is taken to have the disclosure made. That is the purpose of the committee on war expenditures. Some matters should be reported to the government at once privately. I think I made that statement when the committee was being set up, and no exception was taken to it. There may be things done of which the government has no knowledge whatever and which it should have brought to its attention immediately, and I would say it is the duty of every member of a committee on war expenditures, if he learns of a situation of the kind, to inform the government or the minister of the department particularly affected at once so that we may have a chance to look into the matter and see what has taken place at the earliest moment and before some exposure is made which might do more harm than good. There is in these matters a right time and a right means of going about getting a proper adjustment.
My hon. friend spoke a moment ago of some matter which has been the subject of a trial recently. He said that he was getting tired of hearing it said that it was not in the public interest to disclose certain matters.
600	COMMONS
Precedence of Government Motions


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He took exception to its being said that it was not in the public interest.


Gordon Graydon: That had reference to a question in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing to do with the case before the courts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it was an answer to a question put in the house about a subject, as I understood at the time, that was related to a matter under investigation by the courts. I may be wrong in that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not my understanding. It does not read that way


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may not have caught exactly what my hon. friend said.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The question was whether any investigations had been made. Investigations are being made quite frequently. At that time there was taking place in Montreal a criminal trial which occupied the courts for some days and resulted in the conviction of four officers of a subcontracting firm.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the only case which has been investigated for irregularities?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; but when investigations are being made and it is considered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that it would be hampering to give them any publicity, and when an investigation has been made and it has developed that nothing reprehensible has been ascertained, it is considered that it would be unfair to state publicly that such and such a , person or concern had been under investigation.


John George Diefenbaker: But if something reprehensible is found and no prosecution takes place?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then instructions are given to take the proper proceedings. In this particular case where irregularities were found, proceedings were instituted which resulted in the conviction of four officers, who are at present out on bail awaiting sentence, which the judge announced would be pro-Oounced on March 2. In that connection further investigations are being made about things which are suspected of having been done in the course of the trial.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend and colleague for supplementing and explaining the point I had in mind at the time.
Much has been said in this discussion today about the British parliament and the exemplary procedure there. I recall that when the debate on the address opened my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) told us that he had had the privilege-and I think possibly he had it along with my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-of being in the British house when a debate on the address was taking place which lasted only something like two hours. The hon. member was there in the morning and the debate was over in the afternoon.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not quite that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think he said it was all over in one day.


Thomas Miller Bell: I said that we heard the mover and the seconder, the Prime Minister and the leaders of two groups all in the course of two hours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All the important ones.


Thomas Miller Bell: And I was going to add, we do not find that example followed here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the British house the debate on the address, certainly during this period of war, lasts only two or three days and they consider they have had a pretty full discussion when some fifteen members have spoken in the debate. The debate on the address here, with slight interruption, has gone on now for almost a month, and in the course of that time 101 members have spoken, and spoken on almost every subject that can be thought of as of immediate concern. Is it any wonder that the government with the Minister of Finance, being anxious to get his budget before the people of this country so that they will know exactly where they are at with respect to the taxes they will be obliged to pay, and equally anxious to bring down his war appropriation measure because the country is more interested in having provision made for the carrying on of the war than in anything else, and when there are other measures also important to be brought down-is it any wonder that the government should ask for precedence for its measures before another long discussion such as often arises on private members' resolutions?

Precedence oj Government Motions
The hon. leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) again made another statement where he slipped a bit. He said: When the British house is sitting all the time, why should we not be sitting all the time here? I thought my hon. friend had a better memory. I gave the house last year a statement of the sittings of the British house in comparison with the sittings of this house. It was a carefully prepared statement taken from the records, and what did it show? It showed that as a matter of fact this parliament had sat more days, a longer period of time, than the British house. Does my hon. friend know that at the present time the British house sits for only three days a week, and that only at intervals? Does he know that during the period of the blackout the British house hardly ever sits at night? Does he realize that the sessions are very brief on many occasions? Those are the facts, and yet at Westminster they manage, as my hon. friend says, with all the great world problems they have to deal with, to get through with them in a shorter period of time than we take to get through ours. Let me give the facts as I find them in Hansard on June 5, 1942, and as they appear at page 3101:
From May 21, 1940, to November .20, 1940, the British parliament had in all sixty-two sitting days. Our parliament in the complete session from May 16, 1940, to November 5, 1940, had sixty-one sitting days. The British parliament in a like period of time took one day longer than this parliament to transact its business; I think my hon. friend and all hon. members will agree that the British parliament has a much vaster programme to cover, that the questions coming up from day to day are in degree at least, if not in kind, very much more significant than some we have to consider here. For the year following, during the complete session from November 21.	1940 to
November 11, 1941, the British parliament sat 113 days in all. Here, in the complete session, from November 7, 1940 to January 21, 1942, the Canadian parliament sat during 105 days. Let me give those figures again. For the first year there were sixty-two sitting days in England as against sixty-one here. The following year, which was last year, there were 113 sitting days in Britain as against 105 in Canada. Now I come to this year. Since November 12, 1941, up to the present, the British parliament has sat for seventy-seven days. Our parliament, beginning only on January 22, not on November 12 as the British parliament did, has up to to-day sat for eighty days. In other words, we have in this time of war thus far sat this year three days longer than has the British House of Commons.
I do say that, apart altogether from the facts, it is a great mistake to estimate the amount of service which parliament renders by the length of time that members are sitting
in their places in this house. It is not the length of time they are seated; it is what hon. members say in the time they are standing. That is the important thing, and I submit that hon. members can make a much greater contribution to the effectiveness of debate by giving a good deal of time, when they are outside this House of Commons altogether, to the preparation of what they are going to say and to its condensation, and bringing the discussion to a point, than they can make by forming their judgments while discussions are in progress. It is not a matter of the numbers of words; it is the value of ideas expressed and the conviction they carry with them. That, however, is, I think, obvious.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has spoken about orders in council that are passed, and also about the different controls there are, the restrictions, the number of boards and the like. I do not believe there is anyone in this parliament who wishes more, with all his heart, that we could get rid of ninety per cent of the boards and one hundred per cent of some of the restrictions, than I myself. But unfortunately we are in a time of war when problems have become so large that it is not possible for the ministry as a ministry to take upon itself the administration of the many different functions, several of them wholly new-for example, the control of prices and the like-that have come up in the course of the war. These powers have to be delegated in some way to boards, but that does not mean that the ministry gives up responsibility. Unfortunately the ministry is responsible for everything that the boards do, and it is a pretty nasty responsibility on some occasions. Human nature is much the same everywhere. We have to be careful, first of all. in our selection of men, and where they make mistakes, if they do make mistakes, we must change them and try to get others who are better. But I do not think that any system of government can be devised in a time of war which, if the affairs of the country are to be properly carried on, will leave the whole burden of administration on the ministry itself and not have a considerable portion of it delegated.
As regards the numbers of orders in council, there again I think it is a false index to estimate by numbers what is being done by order in council as against what is done by parliament in legislation, because every one of these orders in council has been passed under some authority given by parliament in the first instance; and parliament, which has given that authority, can modify it or take it away at any time. It is true that a minority
Privileges and Elections

cannot do that, but after all the minority have not the responsibility of governing. The responsibility of governing has been put upon the majority by the people. A great many of these orders in council are more in the nature of records, to make sure that everything that can possibly be kept of record will be kept of record, than they are of ordinances in the way' of new legislation. And, as my hon. friend has pointed out, fairly, these orders all come before the house and are capable of being reviewed by hon. members.
I might say more on this motion but since I am anxious to have it carry I think I had better stop.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which on the twenty-ninth of June, 1942, annulled for illegal practices by agents the election of Robert Greig Davidson for the electoral district of Stanstead, and in view of section 71 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, the standing committee on privileges and elections be instructed to consider whether the house should order a new writ for an election in the said electoral district.


Gordon Graydon: I have a brief observation or
two to make on the Prime Minister's motion, and perhaps, in prefacing my remarks, I should give the house some information regarding what has developed previously with respect to this matter. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, in connection with this election case, found corrupt practices and these corrupt practices were sufficient to void the election. Section 50 of chapter 50 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, volume 2, states that, in the circumstances above-mentioned, "the election of such candidate, if he has been elected, shall be void."
In Canadian Law Reports, 1942 S.C., part V, page 319, Mr. Justice Hudson of the supreme court, hearing a motion for a stay of proceedings in this case, reviewed the steps taken. I want at this time to give to the house these particular steps as indicated in outline by the learned justice on that occasion. Mr. Justice Hudson said:
This is a motion for a stay of proceedings pending an application to the judicial committee of the privy council for special leave to appeal from a judgment of this court.
On June 26 (1942) judgment was given by this court reversing a judgment of the trial 
judges and holding that the election of the respondent to the House of Commons for Canada should be annulled. It also awarded to the petitioners the costs of their petition throughout.
On June 30, 1942, the registrar of this court certified to Your Honour as Speaker of the House of Commons the judgment and decision of the court pursuant to the provisions of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, which he cites. On the said June 30 the Speaker of the House of Commons communicated to the House of Commons the report and certificate of this court as required by the provisions of section 70 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. On July 3, 1942, notice of this motion, the motion for a stay of proceedings, was served on the Speaker of the House of Commons and on the agent for the appellant's solicitors. I may say that the motion made before Mr. Justice Hudson was dismissed.
Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act are set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Hudson. Section 71 of that act reads as follows:
When the trial judges or the Supreme Court of Canada in their report on the trial of an election petition under this act, state that corrupt or illegal practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, or that they are of opinion that the inquiry into the circumstances of the election has been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition, and that further inquiry as to whether corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed is desirable, no new writ shall issue for a new election in such cases except by order of the House of Commons.
That brings us down to the position where this motion is now moved. When this section speaks of the report of the Supreme Court of Canada it evidently means the judgment, and that is all that has been communicated to the Speaker and by the Speaker to the house. This section, however, says that no new writ shall issue for an election in such cases except by order of the House of Commons.
The point I wish to make at this moment is this, that the whole matter as to whether or not a writ of election shall issue is plainly before this house. I should like very much to have the Prime Minister explain to the house why it is necessary, on a matter which seems so very simple, to have a committee of the house appointed and set up to deal with it. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the proper thing for the government to have done and for him to have launched was a very simple resolution inviting the house to order that a writ be issued, so that we would not have before us at this time the necessity of referring the matter to the privileges and elections committee.

Privileges and Elections
Having reviewed very briefly the steps that led up to the position in which we now find ourselves, I should like the Prime Minister to explain why this procedure - is taken instead of the procedure I suggested a moment ago.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wish to speak briefly on this motion, because I think the procedure, which I understand is an ancient procedure established by precedent and usage rather than by law, is one which probably has deprived a constituency in this -country of actual membership in this House of Commons for a considerable length of time. I believe that the house itself decided some years ago that every facility should be given to a constituency when a vacancy occurs, to elect a member. Technically there is no vacancy, I understand, until our own committee has heard the matter and made a recommendation to this house and the house has acted upon that recommendation. I rose mainly to suggest that this may deprive a *constituency of membership and representation in this house for a much longer period of time than this house, when the matter was before it some years ago, considered was either necessary or good.
I was looking up, not the law, but rather the practice as laid down on page 234 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, and if hon. members will refer to the rule and the explanatory paragraph accompanying it, it will be found, according to standing order 79:
If it shall appear that any person hath been *elected and returned a member of this house, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this house will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.
The explanatory note, paragraph 820, states:
This standing order has nothing to do with the different laws which fully provide for the trial and punishment of corrupt practices at elections, but it reiterates the house's privilege to deal with offences of bribery and corruption after they have been proved before the competent courts.
Then, after setting forth some of the corrupt practices, it states:
. . . the house has taken such measures as were required by law or usage or as appeared suitable to the occasion. It has been usual in such cases to order a copy of the judgment delivered by the judge and the minutes of evidence to be laid before the house.
I believe that procedure was followed in July. I wonder whether in view of parliament's desire some years ago a method should be provided to prevent a vacancy from being
prolonged because of an ancient usage, if I may put it in that way. While we should protect the privileges of the house and of members of this house, I think that when a competent court has gone into all the evidence in connection with a charge of corruption and has rendered its verdict, sustaining the charge, the seat should be declared vacant and the electors of that constituency given an opportunity to elect a new member to succeed one whose practices or, as in this case, whose agents were declared corrupt by the court.
I believe there is another ancient phase of this usage or law, into which I do not propose to go. I have seen it suggested that a constituency might be penalized by becoming ineligible to elect another member during the lifetime of this parliament. If that is the situation, then the sooner we face it the better, because to punish-for that is what it is, if we regard this parliament as we should regard it-all the people of a constituency for an offence committed by a candidate or by a few persons who surrounded the candidate is a penalty which I think should not be imposed upon a group of people of Canada in this age. We are following that usage now, but I would suggest that at some time the procedure for dealing with the matter of elections be considered and new rules laid down. Certainly I do not think any advantage should be taken of any loophole in the law which might be construed in such a way as to give a constituency a further sentence, to deny it the right of representation in this parliament to which it ought to be entitled. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and hon. members who were responsible for the revision of the election laws a few years ago would not desire to see any further penalty imposed upon the constituency of Stanstead. That was really what I wished to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister and the house, and I should like him to make some comment upon it.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: As a member of the committee on privileges and elections and also a member of the committee that revised the elections act some years ago, I am rather at a loss to know what to say on this occasion. In this parliament, as in other parliaments in the past, we have a number of lawyers, and I consider that they have sadly neglected the rights of the people of Canada by permitting the present roundabout procedure to remain in the act. Of course it may be that it is because we have so many lawyers in the house that the act has been allowed to
Privileges and Elections

stand as it is at the present time. I am just an ordinary member of this house and not a lawyer; perhaps, therefore, I have something to be thankful for and some sins for which I shall not have to answer hereafter, but I should like to see the act clarified in such a way that the constituency of Stanstead or any other constituency will again not be penalized in this way. I do not believe that the hon. member who has been ousted from this house was directly responsible for what occurred, but because he is supposed to be responsible for the sins committed by those working for him. the present situation has resulted. Personally I should like to see the rights of the people protected to a greater extent than they are at present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker- my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has asked me why the government is referring this matter to the committee on privileges and elections at this time, and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has asked me if we are using all possible expedition to see that the constituency of Stanstead, which is without a member in this house at the present time, is not unduly penalized in the matter of not being represented here.
I think I can answer both questions in one statement. This matter came before the house from His Honour Mr. Speaker on July 25, 1942; that was the first intimation the house received with respect to the judgment of the supreme court in the matter of the election at Stanstead. July 25 was a Saturday, very shortly before the adjournment of the house. At that time I consulted the proper authorities as to the course that should be pursued, and I was informed that the matter should go to the committee on privileges and elections. I so informed the house, and no exception was taken, so the matter was referred to the committee. Therefore one of the reasons that has caused me to take the action I am now taking in moving this resolution was that this house has already resolved that this question should go to the committee on privileges and elections. Unfortunately the committee did not meet before the adjournment or during the recess. At the opening of the house this year I indicated that I would take advantage of the earliest opportunity to seo that the matter was referred anew to the committee on privileges and elections to be established, and that is what I am doing now without waiting even until the address has been agreed to.


Gordon Graydon: Would it not have been possible, even in the short time that was left last session, for this matter to have been dealt

with by the committee on privileges and elections?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That I cannot say, but apparently the committee was not called to consider the matter. It, I think, came before the house only five days prior to adjournment, at a time when, as the Hansard to which I have referred would indicate, we were sitting morning, afternoon and evening, on Saturdays as well as other days. It may not have been considered possible or desirable to attempt to hold a meeting at the time. However, that was the responsibility of the committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was too late in the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think it was.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not complaining about the committee. I am suggesting that the usage is rather out of date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps that is a matter which the committee itself may wish to discuss when this question is referred to it. Since my hon. friend the leader of the opposition referred only to the last part of the proceedings which were before the supreme court, I wish to point out this case related to the election of Mr. Davidson as member for Stanstead, and that when the case first arose it went to one of the Quebec courts, which I suppose would be called the trial court. Like my hon. friend the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) I am not a lawyer, and I am not too sure of some of these terms. However, I believe a petition was presented to the court by someone representing the defeated candidate. That court consisted of two judges, and at that time the case was dismissed, the two judges concurring in the decision. Evidently they were nearer the scene of the contest and more familiar with what had taken place on both sides than were some others. Then an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister what he means by that last statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean that we all have a little more intimate knowledge of things nearer home than others have who are further away.


Gordon Graydon: Might that not be taken as a reflection on the supreme court?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no; that has reference only to the sagacity of the two judges who heard the case and who had before them all the local facts.

Defence of Canada Regulations


Mr. BOUCHER:: "Judged by the length of the chancellor's foot."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was equity rather than law, I suppose. At any rate I should like to add this further word, that when the case came before the supreme court an effort was made on behalf of Mr. Davidson to obtain permission to take an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council, but the supreme court did not consent to that course. I mention these things to make perfectly clear Mr. Davidson's position in the whole matter. As the hon. member for Battle River said, I think very kindly and rightly, there was nothing in any of the decisions which reflected on Mr. Davidson's integrity because after all, as I think hon. members will agree, he was one of the most highly respected members of this house. But it was a case of where some of those who perhaps were over enthusiastic as supporters in the campaign had done some things which, the supreme court says they should not have done.


Gordon Graydon: I think, having regard to the judgment, those words are a trifle mild.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I do not know much about elections in Quebec. At any rate the decision is as indicated, and the matter is now being referred, I am happy to say by agreement of the house, to the committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of
Justice) moved:
That a select committee of this house, consisting of the following members: Messrs. Bertrand (Laurier), Black (Yukon), Claxton, Dupuis, Hansell, Hazen, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), Martin, Maybank, Michaud, McGeer, Noseworthy, Ross (Calgary), Slaght, Stirling, be appointed to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation) 1911 and amendments thereto; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath; and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Before this motion is put, I should like to say a word or two. I had the honour to be a member of the committee which sat last year. It made its report on July 23. The report appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day.
During its sittings last year the committee went to a great deal of pains to deal with the particular matters which were brought before it. Twenty-six meetings were held; a great many witnesses were heard and many representations received. Many of these representations were on behalf of the communist party and a number of other organizations which, I believe, had been banned on account of communist affiliation. Unfortunately the adoption of the report was not moved in the house and there was no opportunity of debating it last session. Before the house adjourned I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) what the intentions of the government were with regard to implementing the recommendations of the report, particularly as to lifting the ban on the communist party. The minister's answer did not appear very satisfactory. In any event, no regard has been paid to the recommendations. It is true that, so far as I know, all the communists who were interned at that time have been released, but it seems to me that they were released under circumstances which could and would have been avoided if the recommendations of the committee had been adopted. However, the ban of illegality against the communist party is still maintained. Unlike many hon. members I am not versed in the law, but I fail to understand why the ban on the communist party should not have been lifted. The party was not illegal in this country, at least there were no legal restrictions on its activities, prior to some time in June, 1940, when it was declared illegal; and from all the information I have been able to gather, this action was taken on account of its opposition to the war.
The reason why I voted for the raising of the ban on the communist party was not that I am in accord with its policies, but that, since it had given up its opposition to the war the reason for keeping its members interned had disappeared and the party was back where it was before June, 1940. It seems to me that it would have been much better to remove the ban and put them on the same footing as they were prior to June, 1940, and I hope that either this will be done at an early date or that the house will have good reasons to the contrary.
The recommendation regarding the communist party was only one of a number of recommendations made by the committee. With regard to other organizations which had been declared illegal and whose members were prosecuted as a result of the activities they carried on, our report reads:

Defence of Canada Regulations
That subparagraph "a" of paragraph 1 of regulation 39C be amended by striking therefrom: Technocracy Incorporated, Jehovah's Witnesses, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, International Bible Students Association, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Incorporated.
I understand that the three last mentioned are publishing organizations. Since this house opened, information has been placed in my hands that although the committee recommended that the ban of illegality be lifted from Jehovah's Witnesses, these people are still being prosecuted for being members of Jehovah's Witnesses. The committee was unanimously in favour of raising the ban on this particular sect, and no evidence was put before the committee by the Department of Justice which indicated that at any time Jehovah's Witnesses should have been declared an illegal organization, nor did the representatives of the department raise any objection to the recommendation made by the committee. Since coming to Ottawa, as I said, I have found that these people are still being prosecuted. Their homes are being raided and literature which they have had for ten years is being seized. There have been cases where literature forming part of private libraries has been seized, which I think is forbidden by the law. I am not versed in the law and I do not want to be, but I am told that a private library is not subject to seizure; it is only literature that is held in quantity for either sale or distribution which is subject to such action.
One case brought to my attention is that of a man named Sherwin at Cobourg, Ontario. This man's home was raided and literature which he had had in his home for ten years was seized. He was tried and convicted under sections 217 and 262 of the Customs Act. Surely a man should not be asked to say ten years later how literature had come into his possession. I doubt if many of us could remember where we got a certain book or a certain pamphlet which had been in our libraries for a number of years. I know that some years ago when certain books were declared illegal I bought as many as I could find the money with which to buy them.
In North Bay a man named William Everitt was having a hearing as a conscientious objector. In the course of his examination by the military tribunal he was asked if he was a Jehovah's Witness, and he said he was. He was then arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the charge of being a member of an illegal organization and was sentenced to three months in gaol. A man who appeared for this organization before the committee last year, Mr. Morrell, told me that he had rented a room in his home to a woman. She went to Cleveland to attend a

convention of Jehovah's Witnesses and brought back some bibles. He told me that the Department of National Revenue informed the mounted police that she had brought these books with her. Her room was raided. But they were not content with raiding her room; they raided the rest of the house and seized several books and pamphlets which Mr. Morrell had in his possession. Not only that, they seized the brief which he had placed before the defence of Canada regulations committee during its sittings last year, or perhaps I should say the material used in preparing the brief.


Charles Edward Johnston: Had he submitted it to the committee?


Angus MacInnis: He had submitted it and had kept a copy, or the original. Evidently the mounted police were interested and they took it away. He told me that he has since signed a legal form to have his property returned to him. A date for a hearing was set, but after a consultation between the magistrate and the mounted police the hearing was postponed and he does not know to this day whether this material will be returned.
It seems to me that there is little use in setting up a committee of responsible members of this house to deal with questions of this kind if the government or parliament is not going to give more consideration to its report than was given to the report made by the committee of last year. It is a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada that people should be prosecuted for their religious convictions in the way in which these poor people have been prosecuted. If a committee is set up this year, I hope that the first thing it will do will be to ascertain why no attention was paid to the recommendations made last year, that is, unless the house is informed before then. I do not think I have anything further to say except that I enjoyed my work on the committee. The members were most courteous and went about their work in a businesslike way. While we did not all agree as to some parts of the report, on other parts we were unanimous. As a closing word I should like to hear some reason given why more' attention was not paid to the report made by the committee of last year.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with this motion; in fact I propose to move an amendment in a few minutes. I suggest that he widen the powers of this committee to include the subjects of naturalization and deportation.

Defence of Canada Regulations
The history of these committees on the defence of Canada regulations is probably well known to all members of the house, but at the risk of weaiying them and in order that the record may be kept straight I propose to go over some of the details of what has happened during other years in connection with these particular committees.
The first committee to study the defence of Canada regulations was set up in 1940, and members will find the motion setting up that committee on page 107 of the Journals for that year under date of June 13, 1940. I was a member of that committee, and in the course of our deliberations we found that the question of naturalization and the question of what could or could not be done after the war with people whom it might be necessary to intern, kept coming up. As a matter of fact, some witnesses were called to give evidence on these subjects. One was a senior officer of the Department of the Secretary of State, I think it was the undersecretary; he gave evidence with regard to naturalization; and another was a senior officer from the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources who gave evidence on deportation. Both these witnesses are well known and of high standing and each said that some change should be made in order to meet war requirements.
The committee which met in 1940 did not have time to go into the subject fully. Their report was brought in on August 1, 1940, and it will be found on page 315 of the Journals for that year. In the report it was stated that the questions of naturalization and deportation had come up and had been partly considered. The committee made certain recommendations with regard to naturalization procedure during the war, but they went further and found as follows:
Your committee is of the opinion that measures should be taken to invest the important step of naturalization with greater solemnity and to impress upon those who apply for the privilege the importance of the obligations which they assume as British subjects.
The committee recommended that in the following session another committee should be set up which would have power to review not only the defence of Canada regulations but also the law relating to naturalization and deportation. Then in 1941, when this committee had been set up again, it was given the express power to consider questions of naturalization and deportation. The motion was passed on February 27, 1941, and will be found at page 147 of the Journals for that year. Included in the operative part of the motion we find these words:
That a select committee ... be appointed to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation) 1940, and amendments thereto, and the law relating to naturalization and to review as well the law relating to deportation.
And so on. At the time the motion was under consideration in the house there was a discussion on these very points, and the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Mr. Casgrain, speaking on behalf of the government, said on March 3, 1941, as reported at page 1186 of Hansard of that date:
As regards solemnity in the granting of certificates of naturalization, so far as I am concerned I am of opinion that possibly later on, when the law is being amended-and this will be done only after the committee has considered the whole subject-the question might be considered of investing the procedure with more solemnity in order to impress new citizens with the obligations they assume on becoming Canadians. I give this as my personal opinion.
He went on to explain that as a result of the recommendations of the committee in 1940 an interdepartmental committee had been set up to study naturalization, but he said that the whole matter would be fully discussed during the 1941 session by the special committee of the house on the defence of Canada regulations. The intention obviously was that no changes would be made until after the question had been considered by the committee and also by the house.
The 1941 committee again heard evidence with regard to naturalization and deportation, and their report was made on June 4, 1941, and will be found at page 445 of the Journals for that year. Dealing with these two questions, the committee said:
Your committee has received some evidence and has investigated these two important subjects in part only and, notwithstanding the fact that your committee has held a great many meetings, including on occasions two meetings a day, the limited time at our command has made it impossible to devote the time to these subjects which they require in order to enable a proper report to be made to the house.
Your committee therefore respectfully begs to recommend that at the next session of tile house the law relating to naturalization and deportation and matters incidental thereto be the subject matter of a reference to a committee of the house.
Then last year, 1942, when notice was given of the setting up of a committee on the defence of Canada regulations, that part of the 1941 notice dealing with naturalization and deportation had been omitted. I complained of that at the time and asked that the committee should be authorized to consider the two subjects; I was supported in that contention by several members of the house who had served on the committee previously.

Defence of Canada Regulations
The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) as reported at page 2100 of Hansard of 1942 took this position:
I certainly would have no objection to the committee examining any subjects.
But he went on to explain that his experience in the house and in these matters had been limited, and he thought perhaps it would be as well to let the motion go through as it stood; if the committee wished to ask for an extension of its powers it could do so. But nothing more was done. The report from the committee of 1941 was not followed either, in that no special committee was set up to deal with these two questions alone. The consequence was that nothing was done with respect to naturalization and deportation throughout the session of last year.
But now we find that on July 9, 1942, an order in council was passed which made quite important changes in the naturalization regulations, and I would remind the house through you, Mr. Speaker, that this was while parliament was still in session. One of the main changes made by this order in council was that it provided that an applicant for naturalization must file a declaration of his intention, and also provision was made that the oath of allegiance must be taken in open court.


Mr. McLARTY:: I think the hon. member used the word "must." I think the privilege was given that he "might" file a declaration of his intention.


Howard Charles Green: That makes it worse, for the first committee which considered the matter was of opinion that a declaration should be filed.
Two months later, on September 23, an order in council was passed, of which again we received no notice, which provided that anyone applying during the calendar year 1943 for a certificate of naturalization need not file a notice of declaration of his intention.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed' at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: When the house rose at six o'clock I was explaining that although two different committees of this house had recommended that the law relating to naturalization and to deportation should be further reviewed by a committee of the house and then of course dealt with by the house itself; although that has not been done; and although previous ministers had let it be understood that some such course would be followed, we find now that last summer the fMr. Green.]
government put through orders in council which changed the naturalization regulations; and last month they passed by order in council a revised set of naturalization regulations; this I submit was unfair to this parliament and is a practice that should be frowned upon by members and one that should not be followed in the future. However, the government now have an opportunity to make up for their sins of the past-some of them at any rate-and therefore I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence):
That the motion be amended by adding after the word "thereto", in the sixth line, the following words:	and the law relating to
naturalization and to deportation.
The effect of that will be that this committee which is being set up will have the power to review not only the defence of Canada regulations, but also the law having to do with naturalization and deportation.
There are several different ways in which our naturalization law could be improved. For example, some provision should be made for naturalization schools, in which our new citizens could learn something about Canada, its laws and customs, and so on, and also naturalization textbooks might be supplied. I think we might learn a good deal from the United States in the way they naturalize new citizens. Then, some provision must be made to do away with dual citizenship. On the Pacific coast we have been faced for many years with the situation that a Japanese national would take out papers and yet at the same time, under the law of Japan, he might still be a Japanese citizen. That must be stopped.
I suggest that wider powers should be given to the naturalization judges. They are quite restricted now in the questions they can ask an applicant, and they should be given wider powers. Moreover, there should be far more solemnity when we grant a certificate of naturalization. I suggest that leading citizens should be called in to take part in the ceremony. That has been done already in certain cities of Canada, and if some such plan were worked out it would do a great deal of good not only to applicants for naturalization but also to present Canadians. It might also help us to hold out the hand of friendship to our new citizens.
There are many clubs across Canada which are interested in this naturalization problem. For example, the Canadian Club, I believe, made representations to the committee which sat in 1941, and many of the service clubs are taking an interest in the matter. They

Dejence oj Canada Regulations
should be given a chance to help to work out some better method of carrying out naturalization.
With regard to the question of deportation, I have only this to say. The ministers can contradict me if I am wrong, but I understand the present position to be that a member of the nazi party in an internment camp to-day could not be sent back to Germany after the war provided he had been in Canada for a period of five years. That is ridiculous. We must change our laws so that we can deal adequately and promptly with these people once the war is over.
Both these questions are of vital importance at the present time, and therefore I am moving the amendment. The committee that is to be set up is a small committee of only fifteen members. In each year the defence of Canada regulations committee has had the reputation of being one of the best set up by the house. Their deliberations have been non-partisan and they have really done splendid work. This year there is not so much to be dealt with in connection with the regulations; the committee is being set up much earlier than last year, and there is no doubt that they could look carefully into these two questions of naturalization and deportation.
I would appeal to the ministry, despite the few hard things I have said against them on these subjects, to accept this amendment. I think it is proper to extend the powers of the committee to deal with these two questions of naturalization and deportation as well as the defence of Canada regulations.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not intend to take up the time of the house at any great length in dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Perhaps it would be unnecessary for me to say anything, because I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who moved this resolution, is prepared to accept the amendment. However, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South, it would appear to be proper if I dealt briefly-extremely briefly-with some of the matters that he has mentioned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I notice that when I used the words "extremely briefly" it was greeted with a "hear, hear," and I will endeavour to give consideration to that admonition.
As the hon. member correctly pointed out, when the committee was set up in 1941 the clause which he suggests adding to the proposed resolution was included in the resolu-72537-39
tion then presented. Unfortunately-and I would not for a moment suggest that it was any fault of the committee, because it was a very able one-on account of various matters they had to consider, and perhaps on account of the lateness of their appointment, they did not have an opportunity, which I know they would have seized on if it had presented itself, of giving that consideration which might otherwise have been given to these important matters.
I can speak only with regard to the matter of naturalization, but in so far as naturalization is concerned, so far as consideration of those important questions are concerned, frankly, sir, I welcome it; and I trust in view of the fact, as the member for Vancouver South has just pointed out, that the committee is being appointed earlier in the session, and that according to the law of diminishing returns their work will be less strenuous this session than it has been for the last three, that serious and careful consideration will be given to the matter of naturalization.
Last Wednesday and again this evening the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to the passing of certain orders in council dealing with the matter of naturalization. I rather took it from his remarks, although he may not have intended it, that there was a usurpation by the executive power of the functions properly falling to this parliament.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I meant.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member confirms it; that is what he meant. I will deal with that contention. The first order in council to which he referred was passed on July 9 last. That order in council makes no amendment, nor does any order in council make any amendment to the Naturalization Act.


Howard Charles Green: I said the regulations.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is an amendment only to the regulations, and the regulations under the act itself are necessarily passed by order in council. In fact, if I may answer the remark of last Wednesday, I would say that bearing in mind the fact that these regulations will last only for the war-time period and are designed so to last, there has been no possible infringement upon the rights and privileges of this house. The act itself prescribes that the regulations are to be made by order in council, and if they happen to be made under the War Measures Act that limits them to the period of the war. Certainly there has been no usurpation of power on the part of the executive.
What does the order in council of July 9 do? It gives the right to grant certificates of



Defence of Canada Regulations
naturalization to any alien serving outside Canada with the naval, military or air forces of Canada. Could any hon. member object to that? It goes further. It says that any alien who applies for exemption from military training or service on the ground that he is a citizen or subject of another country shall be debarred from applying for or receiving a certificate of naturalization under the Naturalization Act or these regulations. That must be read as it was intended, "for the duration of the war".
It does another thing; it adopts the first paper procedure, a procedure with which we are perhaps not as familiar as we might be, but which has been largely used in the republic to the south. That has two effects. The hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that the committee wanted a greater measure of solemnity in the matter of naturalization. This gives a greater measure of solemnity. This gives a waiting period of four years, during which the applicant can be constantly under observation and his record can be continuously followed. It does another thing; it gives to those who are new citizens of this country an opportunity of showing that they have taken every step they can to ensure that at the proper time and under the proper circumstances they will become Canadian citizens. That is the effect of the amendment to the regulations of July 9.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that another order was passed on September 23. What was the effect of that order? The effect was to give to the Secretary of State the same power to reject a declaration of intention as he has to-day to reject an application for naturalization. It does more. Because of that new procedure it was thought that the necessary papers could be prepared by September 1. In practice it was found that this was not feasible. Consequently it extended it until January 1 instead of making it become operative on September 1.


Howard Charles Green: What about the last paragraph of the order in council passed September 23, 1942?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does that deal with the matter of one who under ordinary conditions-


Howard Charles Green: It states that this declaration of intention does not need to be filed until January 1, 1944.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am glad my hon. friend brought that up. The situation was that there were a great many who had taken steps to be naturalized in 1943. They did not have opportunity to complete their declaration of intention in time. Consequently the order in

council states that anyone who would be entitled during the year 1943 to apply for naturalization should not be debarred merely by reason of the fact that he had not previously filed a declaration of intention.
I have dealt with the orders in council that have been passed. I suggest that there is not one of those orders that in any way deals with the substantive terms of the Naturalization Act, but merely with the regulations, which apart from the War Measures Act the governor in council is entitled to deal with.
But let me go further. I might make this clear to the committee. It may be a matter of some disappointment to them, but I believe those who have been members of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations are apprised of it. In 1914 we had a great amendment to the Naturalization Act. Instead of creating Canadian citizens alone, we created British citizens. That right involved a corresponding obligation, and that obligation was recognized in this way, that in the matter of the fundamental changes of our Naturalization Act those changes would not be undertaken without first consulting with Great Britain and the other commonwealths of the empire. That will be a definite limitation on the work of the committee. To show that this has been lived up to in Great Britain, I might refer to the report contained in the Daily Telegraph and Morning Post of January 27 last. It dealt with a debate in the House of Lords. In that debate a suggestion of an amendment was proposed to the bill dealing with an important matter-and it is an important matter-of the status of married women. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, dealt with it and the press report states:
Lord Simon explained that the government could not make the proposed changes, as all the clauses in the present bill had been agreed with the dominions.
There is that restriction, that limitation which we shall have to observe, namely, that no fundamental changes in our Naturalization Act can be made without first consulting with Great Britain and our sister commonwealths. But within that limitation there is ample scope.
In war time the administration of the Naturalization Act is bound to create difficulty and to cause worries. The situation is much more acute than in peace time when perhaps we go through the ordinary procedure and may fall into a rut. In war time it is much more difficult. There will be scope for this committee, notwithstanding no recommendation of fundamental changes to the act itself, to deal with the practice and the regulations

Defence of Canada Regulations
in the matter of naturalization. Those recommendations cannot help being of assistance to the department of which I have the honour to be the head.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am pleased indeed to hear the minister accept the amendment just presented. It gives to me a reason for the setting up of this committee. Until that amendment was presented I was at a loss to know why this committee was being set up again this year. There was a committee last year that went into most of the problems pertaining to the defence of Canada regulations. That committee brought to Ottawa large deputations of people from many places at great expense and made a very thorough examination of this problem. After due consideration they arrived at certain recommendations. Those recommendations were presented to this house, but no opportunity has been given to the house to discuss or to express its approval or disapproval of them. Yet without being given that opportunity we are asked again to-night to consent to the setting up of another committee, which I presume is to cover exactly the same ground and review exactly the same situation. I wonder what purpose the minister has in mind in asking that this committee be set up. Does he hope that a new committee will arrive at different conclusions and bring in a different set of recommendations from those brought in last year? Or are we to conclude that unless a committee of this kind can bring in recommendations which are favourable to the government, the recommendations it does bring in will receive no consideration, and that such a committee is expected to bring in recommendations which must meet with the approval of the government before they can be brought before this house for discussion and consideration.
I am not going to deal at length with the communist situation, since that has been dealt with already in this debate, but one point puzzles me and probably the minister can give us the answer. Communists were interned and the communist party was banned, I presume for the reason that they were opposed to our war effort. Communists have been released from internment, but the communist party remains banned. Will the minister explain on what ground he makes this differentiation; why there is ground for the release of communists and no ground for the lifting of the ban? I hope the minister is not deluded into thinking that by maintaining this ban he is hindering in any way the work of that party. Rather I would suggest to the minister that by keeping the ban in effect he is giving those people reason to appeal to the public on the 72537-39}
ground that they are suffering an injustice, and that they can be and are being more successful in building up their organization under those circumstances than would be the situation if the ban were lifted.
There are one or two other points on which I wish to ask for information. The matter of Jehovah's Witnesses has already been called to the attention of this house, but I think hon. members should understand that one treatment is being meted out to-day to the communists and an entirely different treatment is being meted out to Jehovah's Witnesses. Communists have been released, and so far as I know there have been no recent prosecutions. They are allowed to operate and carry on their activity under a dozen different names in this country. On the other hand, even since the recommendations of this committee were made, in fact as late as last week, the homes of those belonging to Jehovah's Witnesses have been raided by the mounted police, their literature taken and prosecutions threatened. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that in many instances the literature taken is nothing more or less than the King James version of the Bible, the only difference between the copies taken by the mounted police and those read in Christian churches in this and all other cities being that those taken by the mounted police have been printed by a certain publishing house. In every other respect they are the same as those used by the rest of us. May I ask the minister if we have reached the stage in this dominion where he and those associated with him have been given authority to determine what religious faith a man shall follow or profess in this country. Are these people being prosecuted for military reasons, for political reasons or for religious reasons? Is it because they are not good citizens? Is it because they are opposed to our war effort? Or is it because they belong to a particular religious faith? Those are questions which I think should be answered.
. Another point on which I should like a little information is with regard to the Ukrainian labour temple farmer association. I have before me a telegram which I think was sent to the Prime Minister, containing a resolution which was passed unanimously at a very large public meeting held at Toronto less than two weeks ago, as follows:
We, the persons present at a meeting at Massey Hall, Toronto, having heard a full account of the grievous wrong done to the former members of the Ukrainian labour temple farmer association by the seizure of more than one hundred properties acquired by the sacrifices of a large number of loyal new Canadians, the consequent suppression of many healthy and
<512

Defence of Canada Regulations
beneficial activities of a cultural and musical nature, an example of which we have enjoyed to-night, and the wanton destruction of valuable and irreplaceable books and manuscripts in some cities, all on the ground of supposed political activities of a small minority of leaders, hereby call upon the dominion government forthwith to restore full possession of the confiscated properties to representatives of the former members so that the former activities of a cultural and musical nature may be renewed, and to institute forthwith an inquiry in regard to the alleged destruction of books and to fix the responsibility therefor, and to deal firmly, if the fact is established, with those responsible for such conduct, and to make full compensation to the owner.
Will the Minister of Justice explain to the house just what is or wherein lies the difference between the treatment we are meting out to those people and the treatment that is being meted out under similar circumstances in Germany to-day? There is this difference. Under the present administration fewer than one thousand Jehovah's Witnesses have been prosecuted. In Germany more than six thousand members of the same organization have been prosecuted. They are being prosecuted in Germany much the same as they are here, and for much the same reason.


Mr. MAYBANK:: What is the hon. member's authority for stating that prosecutions in Germany and in Canada are as he has stated?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I believe the hon. member will find that statement in a brief presented last year to the committee. The information I am giving was all placed before that committee.
We read about the burning of books in Germany, and their sale, destruction or confiscation in this country. Yet I understand that Canada is a party to the twenty-six-nation agreement which established freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Can we make our course of action gibe with that declaration?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before this motion is passed. It has been interesting to listen to the comments of hon. members who have spoken. Thus far, so far as I can recall, not one member has spoken in favour of the action of the Department of Justice in not accepting the recommendations of the committee.
The outstanding point is that in its report the committee made certain suggestions to the department with regard to the lifting of the ban on these different organizations, and still the department has absolutely flouted the authority of the committee, and turned it down flat. Up to this time I do not think

the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has made any explanation to the house.
I agree with those who ask why the department now seeks to set up another committee. It would seem to me, as was pointed out by the hon. member who preceded me, that it would be an utter waste of time to reconstitute a committee for the same purposes which prompted the setting up of last year's committee. I believe it is evident to all reasonable, thinking people that the Minister of Justice has determined that the committee must bring in a report with which he is in favour, or he will not do anything about it. Such action as that is-I was going to say Hitlerite, but probably that would not be the right word. Certainly, however, it is flouting the authority of the House of Commons and, especially, the committee. The committee should refuse to sit until it is given a proper explanation.
One of the recommendations of the committee was the lifting of the ban on communism. I do not care what action a man takes, on almost any subject, as long as he is consistent. But if there is one thing I do detest, it is a hypocrite. We have sat in the house and listened to countless numbers of hon. members praise Russia. I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice and many other ministers do the same thing. If one goes to a moving-picture show we see the eulogizing of Russia, our great ally. We are told what wonderful heroes they are, how much they have done, how they are fighting for us, and how much we must respect them. At the same time we have them in gaol-or at least we had them in gaol. What hypocrisy! The Russians must laugh at us-and no one could blame them.
Surely we ought to be a little bit consistent. If we are going to put them in gaol, then why not come out and say so, openly? Those who were put into internment camps I believe have nearly all been released, but they are still declared illegal. They were supposed to have been banned on account of their attitude toward our war effort. If we wanted to become a little bit personal I think we could indicate quite a few people in this country who were strongly isolationist, and who are to-day very anti-British. That has been mentioned in this House of Commons. Therefore neither the Department of Justice nor anyone else could object if that were the only reason for outlawing them, but even that does not stand now.
Let us be consistent. The Minister of Justice should explain why these things are taking place. Surely it has come to a pretty

Dejence oj Canada Regulations
stage in this country, this democracy, when men in one part of Canada cannot express their opinions as clearly as they can in another part. I can see no logical reason why the government should not have acted on the report brought in by the committee-a unanimous report, I understand-


Ralph Maybank: No, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: Almost
unanimous, then. Probably the hon. member did not agree. It was almost unanimous with regard to lifting the ban on communism, and I believe it was unanimous with respect to Jehovah's Witnesses-although probably the hon. member was not there that day.


Mr. DUPUIS:: He was there; it was in
camera.


Charles Edward Johnston: When the majority of the committee agreed on the recommendation I can see no logical reason why it should not have been acted upon.
Our party was in favour of accepting the report brought down by the committee; otherwise I can see no use in having it.
We now come to the second part of the report, namely, that with respect to lifting the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watch Tower institution, or whatever it was called, and other religious organizations. From time to time I have been sent articles respecting Jehovah's Witnesses, and I used to receive quite regularly a publication called the "Watch Tower." In all the articles I have received-speaking, of course, of those I have read-I could see nothing to warrant their being banned.
I believe it was suggested on one occasion that they were banned because they were against the war effort, and it was considered that they were not in favour of our war effort because they did not want to kill. However I believe I could bring to the attention of the Department of Justice another place in Canada where there was much more said than anything said by the Jehovah's Witnesses along this line. If I recall rightly, the Department of Justice was informed about the matter, but no action was taken. I am not going to raise religious arguments at this time, but I say that in this connection it would be well to remember that consistency is a very good thing to follow. It is ridiculous to think that we, in our so-called, democracy, would go into a man's house, take anything we like from his private library, arrest him on that evidence and put him in gaol. We do that because he happens to have a faith different from that of some of the rest of us. If that principle were carried out to the limit, then there should be many of us in gaol.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, it might be a good place to start a special con-central ion camp for some of you fellows over there. It might not hurt you a bit.


Angus MacInnis: It would not do them any good.


Charles Edward Johnston: Probably it would not do them any good, either.
I say that the minister is in duty bound to explain to the house why he deliberately flouted the authority of a committee set up by the House of Commons. He should go further and tell the house why Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious organizations are outlawed. He should definitely explain to the house why the ban on communism is not lifted. If that old excuse about communism being against our war effort stood at the time communist organizations were declared illegal, it certainly does not hold good to-day. I recall that the attitude of some members of this house, in fact, of by far the majority of the members of this house, was against an all-out war effort. It is so recorded in Hansard. They voted against an all-out war effort. Why, then, should they go round and accuse the poor communist of being against us?


Mr. TURGEON:: Does the hon. member say that the majority of the members voted against an all-out war effort?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by far, all but the members of this party, if the hon. member wants me to be explicit. I can prove that by Hansard, too. I do not think I shall say anything more until I hear from the Minister of Justice. At that time I may have something more to say because I have it right here before me.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members who have addressed the house on this resolution and the amendment seem to have overlooked for a moment the fact that we are at war. They complain about the drastic actions which must be taken on account of the fact that we are at war. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was the first one to refer to the committee of last session, and he took the precaution to tell the house that he did not approve the doctrines of the communists. The members of his party who followed him have not taken the same precaution. What may be inferred from that is for the house to decide.
I was a member of that committee. In connection with the different sects and isms and doctrines which were considered by the committee, I wish to say frankly that as far

Defence of Canada Regulations
as I could see from the evidence before us the institution calling itself Jehovah's Wit>-nesses was simply an over-zealous religious sect and not at all one dangerous to the carrying on of the war by Canada. The same might be said to be true of some of the other sects, but I would be astonished if any member of the committee, bearing in mind the evidence given, would say that of the institution known as communism.
Without exception the witnesses for the communists admitted that before Russia was attacked by Germany they had opposed Canada being at war with Germany. In fact, they had come to support Canada only because Germany had attacked Russia. I think it is fair to infer that if hostilities between Russia and Germany came to an end, these same communists would again be on the side of Germany and against us.
It is not fair to say that the report of the committee last year was anywhere near to being unanimous. Members of the housespeaking to-night have referred to how high-minded the committee was, what a splendid membership there was, but I think the members of this house have a better opinion of the members of the committee than had some members of the committee of certain other members. However, I must say that our differences were expressed in argument and debate; we did not descend to the tactics of the communists. If we had, the minority would have been liquidated; they would not have had any report to make.
Evidence was given of the subversive activities in Canada of the communist party. They advocated and followed those subversive tactics in this country. Their literature showed; the evidence of the witnesses showed that they were advised to stir up dissatisfaction in Canada's armed forces, to incite the members of the forces to revolt against their leaders and against their officers. They even went so far as to advise methods of sinking the ships of war of the allied nations. Yet it is said that we should put up with that conduct in Canada.
It may be that communism is tolerated in Australia and in Great Britain. In Great Britain they may be able to laugh off communism with the other soap-box orators in Hyde park, but we in Canada cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to have a change of government by force advocated in this country. I think the Department of Justice went a long way in adopting that section of the report with reference to the releasing of men who were then in prison, and 
I compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and -the department upon not going so far as to lift the loan on communism.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago when the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said that the committee had been unanimous, I thought he was speaking of the report generally and I interrupted him. From what he said later I gathered that at that time he was referring to Jehovah's Witnesses. If he means that the committee was unanimous at that time, of course I was quite incorrect to endeavour to set him right because he was right already. However, as' to whether the committee was or was not unanimous generally I think it will be observed by the house that already two members of the house have taken diametrically opposite views. I in turn perhaps will further show the house by what I say that the committee was far from being unanimous. I also was a member of that committee.
At the outset I would indicate one rather sharp difference of opinion between myself and some of the members who have spoken. It is that, while I hold strongly that certain things ought to have been done, namely, that the recommendations of the committee should have been implemented, I still do not see in the circumstances of the case, any right of recrimination such as has been demonstrated by those at the far end of the house. I do not see any occasion at all for the hon. member for Bow River, for instance, speaking in such a heated fashion about this question.
The fact of the matter is that generally speaking the committee got along much better than the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) seemed to hint in his last few words.
True, the committee was not unanimous on anything very often or for long periods of time. If the committee happened to be unanimous at a quarter to eleven o'clock, it was altogether likely that it would not be unanimous at thirteen minutes to eleven; but still the members got along well.
There is no use in private members blaming the government for the non-adoption of the report, and I do not want any person suggesting or hinting that I am an apologist for the government in this connection because they know better. Every hon. member who has spoken in this fashion knows perfectly well that there were many opportunities to have the report adopted. Every hon. member who has spoken knows that he personally had an opportunity to move the adoption of

Defence of Canada Regulations
the report, and that he refrained1 from taking the opportunity. All these members knew at every moment of the closing days of last session just where the report stood with reference to being adopted or not adopted, and they themselves had the opportunity, at any stage, of proposing the adoption of that report. And they knew they had. There is no use in blaming somebody else. It may be that somebody is to blame, but if so, blame attaches to each of them as much as to any one else.
The facts are well known as to what happened with regard to that report. The chairman of the committee was a minister of the crown. He was not in agreement with the recommendations and he did-not want to move the adoption of the report. I suppose that even if you are a minister of the crown you have some right of independence of ideas. He quit his job; he resigned as chairman; another chairman took his place, and there was considerable thought on his part and on the part of others as to whether the report should be presented for adoption as well as merely being tabled. All this is a matter of common knowledge. As far as the two groups at the far end of the chamber are concerned, they know that what I am saying is true. They had their representatives there on the committee; and not only that, they knew by conversation with other members that what I have said is entirely true. I do not approve this business of standing up and trying to blame some other person; that is why I am speaking in this way.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) got the approval of the members of that committee to refrain from moving the adoption of the report. It was at first his intention to move the adoption, but afterwards he called the committee together and obtained their approval to the course of simply laying the report on the table. He did not get my approval; I did not happen to be there. The hon. members who have spoken in this discussion know all this quite well. I took the view then, quite openly, that the adoption of that report should be moved, and that it was the duty of the chairman to do so. These hon. members know that, but they are trying to keep it quiet; they would like to attach the blame elsewhere.
What was the position when the chairman decided not to move the adoption of the report? It was that anybody else could move the adoption; and in pursuance of that right I put a notice on the order paper that I would do so. And then I did not do it.


Ralph Maybank: Well, I do not know why the hon. member says "shame". I feel no particular shame about it or in telling about it afterwards; but if I were trying to hint that somebody else is to blame, I would be ashamed. Hon. members know the circumstances around the close of last session; already the house was becoming somewhat thinner. Also a certain number of people did not want to discuss this question. I have no hesitation in saying that many of my good friends from the province of Quebec urged in conversation with me that the adoption of the report should not at that particular time be moved; that the report probably would have just as much effect if it were not formally adopted. They said, and I recognized the justice of their contention, "It is going to make a division in the country at the present time; everybody is very hot about this, and we think. Maybank, if you will let it go, in the long run that will turn out to be the wiser course." I never made any secret of my position in the matter. Finally, after a lot of argument-and it took a lot, because I am a stubborn fellow-I agreed. I no sooner agreed to refrain at that time, than members of those other two groups were made aware of the fact that I was not going to move the adoption of the report, and the position was wide open for them to step in and move it themselves. But they did not do so. I am not blaming them for such decision, but one of them, at least, might have disclosed the facts rather than hint that somebody else is to blame.
These are the simple facts, and this is why the report did not happen to be adopted or its adoption did not happen to be refused. The vote on that subject would have been about as uncertain as a horse race or a general election. I do not know what would have happened, but I do know why the adoption of the report was not moved.
Every person knows that, except with respect to the recommendation relative to Technocrats and Jehovah's Witnesses, the report was by no means unanimous. In support of that statement I would remind the house it was agreed in the committee that recommendations of the committee would be kept secret until the report was tabled in the house. A completely accurate report of the doings of the committee and the report was published in the Montreal Standard within two or three days of that time. Hence everyone was informed. Many conversations were going on around the house as to what the committee was doing, and every other hon. member knew as much as the members of the committee themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!

Defence of Canada Regulations
I am one who believes that the report of that committee should have been implemented by the government. Make no mistake about that; that is the view I took. But I cannot agree with some lion, members who suggest that any special blame attaches to the government for the reason that the committee did not report unanimously and all members refrained from seeking adoption of the report. As a matter of fact committee opinion was fairly evenly balanced between the pros and the cons. Oh! I cannot use that expression any more on account of there being now a hyphenated party in the house; it could lead to misunderstanding. In the light of the fact that the committee was not unanimous, indeed was on a hair-spring balance, and the further fact that we did not get the house to adopt our report, I do not see how any person except one who wants to be factiously critical can, with the vehemence some hon. members have been exhibiting, lay blame on the government. It surely is quite as much their own fault. They might recall the words spoken to Brutus: The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Let me now deal with the position of some of the organizations which have been mentioned. The committee, as I said, was unanimous with regard to the Technocrats, The Technocrats are a poor little organization which, I suppose, is making some kind of study and for some reason or another they were banned. I do not imagine that there ever was any great harm in them; but when they were originally banned I was aware that there was information from societies and from companies going to the United States, which at that time was not at war. I knew of possibilities with insurance companies; I thought that something might be happening with regard to this Technocrat organization similar to what could happen with insurance companies; that information could go to the United States and be passed on to Belgium, and so forth. Information was getting from Canada to the United States and overseas from there. I thought something of the sort might be the reason for the ban. But I must say that the government never gave much of a reason for banning the Technocrats. However, I was willing for a while to let this organization stay banned. But when we came to look into the question last year, the question of whether the ban should remain on that organization or not there was no reason that anyone could suggest why it should stay banned. I think that was the view of the committee, and when they reported back to the house and the house took cognizance of it, I believe that, in the light of the facts and of the deliberations of 
the committee, the ban should have been lifted at once. I do not think there can be any argument, unless there is something that should have been told the committee-and was not told-why the ban should have been kept on that organization.
I now come to Jehovah's Witnesses. Again we must see there was unanimity in the committee's report. I have the case of the government-and of the mounted police-against Jehovah's Witnesses; and, Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to read that case here in this house. As a matter of fact, the case against Jehovah's Witnesses, as presented to us at any rate, is just laughable. That is all there is to it. There is no occasion whatever for that organization being under the ban. I know they are a bother and, to use the language of sportdom, I wish they would take a "rain check" on their disturbances until the war is over. I understand that they go round and play phonographs in places where the phonograph records will anger those who hear them. Pretty soon a fight develops and there is a big disturbance in the community. Having done that in one community, they will do it in another. I do not say they do it all the time, but I gather they have been known to do that sort of thing. They pick out Catholic communities particularly and go and play records that damn the pope and say things against Catholics generally, and all that sort of thing. Well, if you go into any Catholic community and carry on in that way, naturally there will be trouble. But such actions do not constitute a sufficient reason to put a ban on the organization itself.
. The manner in which these people have been treated at times shows the wrong that can be done by operating under a law of this sort. Reference has already been made to the seizure of Bibles. I know of a case out in British Columbia where a considerable number of Bibles were seized and brought to a mill for destruction by reason of the fact that they were contraband and confiscated articles. The owner of the mill, looking at these Bibles, said that it was sacrilege to destroy them, and he found another use for them. Perhaps they are now in the hands of people who may read in them the proper passages from which to learn tolerance. It is nonsensical to have a law which permits such actions. As I have intimated already, the strongest case that can be made for the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses being lifted, is the very case against Jehovah's Witnesses as presented to the committee.
I now come to the position with relation to communists. I believe it is a wiser policy to lift the ban on the communists. That is the position I take with relation to them. If I

Defence of Canada Regulations
should happen to fail to remark that I am out of sympathy with the communists, I hope, sir, you will not draw from my silence any inference such as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) indicated a little time ago could be drawn from the silence of other hon. members. Perhaps, for safety's sake, I should say at once that I am not in sympathy with them and thus get out from under any possible charge. I think it is wiser to remove the ban from an organization of that sort than to drive it into underground methods. That is my whole approach to the question. I know their record was bad up to the time Russia came into the war, but I think from all we have been able to learn that such is not the situation after Russia came in. The attitude of an organization which changes because a foreign power comes in as our ally is not a satisfactory attitude. I would prefer, as all would, that they should change their attitude because of their Canadianism; nevertheless, so far as any evidence we can find is concerned, they did cease to be subversive, and as a matter of fact they are doing a great many good things throughout the country at the present time.
Now, although banned, the communists are actually organizing. They are abroad doing some kind of organizing. They are probably organizing their party, but doing it in an underground, hidden way as much as possible. They are likely, by reason of this grievance, to be doing much more harm than if they were out in the open where we could see them. After all, this country, this government, this parliament, or any of the parties in the house, need have no fear whatever of any organization which it can see. When a government drives an organization into subterranean channels, it is only inviting trouble for itself.
Moreover, we are in a decidedly illogical position. We have a law whereby people cannot belong to the communist party of Canada. As a matter of fact, they will be put in gaol or in some way detained if they belong. But we let them all out. We have a law against burglary, but we do not let out all burglars. The law forbids burglary, and if the act is done those who commit it are put in gaol. But in this case these people have all been released. Great celebrations have been held in every city, and they are appearing on platforms with other citizens and joining all sorts of other community movements; yet they and their association together with the communist party of Canada are said to be illegal. The thing is illogical.
I further think that we are in danger of creating an impression of persecution. There is danger of doing more harm in the labour 72537-40
world than any good that can be accomplished in any other way. I have observed that resolutions came in first from what one might call the extreme left wing of labour organizations; gradually they moved toward the right, and the two chief labour organizations of the country have already requested the government to lift the ban. Also a large number of other organizations have done the same. There is danger of creating a really serious grievance if some relief is not given.
There is an argument that might be presented with reference to the communists. I think the Minister of Justice might state it, namely, that this organization is illegal anyway under the criminal code. That may be so. If so, it is not made any more illegal by the ban being put on it. You cannot direct traffic any better by putting up two stop signs instead of one. If this organization is illegal under the criminal code, there is no need of this defence of Canada regulations ban.
I come now to the position of the farmer labour temple organization. This is an organization that used to own and operate a number of labour temples. The reason why it was put under the ban was that it was tinged with communism. Its officers were mostly communists. They bored from within until they got into the proper positions and there they held. I have no doubt the organization was one that propagated communism and did so successfully.
All those people who were heads of that organization have been released from internment. As far as the public can see they are honest, honourable and respected citizens going about the country. The only thing is they are not allowed to be officers of that particular organization, and in order to prevent them from becoming officers the organization has been made illegal. That is a pretty roundabout way of trying to prevent the spread of communism, and it is another example of creating a grievance and giving people a chance to talk about it all the time. It is highly illogical to leave these leaders at large; tell them they can go around making speeches here, there and everywhere, but they cannot have their labour temples, or appear in them to make speeches. It is like saying to the soap-box orator, "You may orate as much as you like, but we will kick the soap-box from under you." We take away their property, but let them loose.
There is arising in my mind a suspicion that one of the reasons for not wanting to restore this organization is that the custodian of enemy property may be in a jam. At any rate it seems so clear that there is no reason



Defence of Canada Regulations
for maintaining the ban on this organization that I am beginning to wonder whether the trustee who got the property can make a good report. I know a great deal of that property has been disposed of. I thought at one time that the custodian could take care of himself properly when he came to report on his trusteeship, but I wonder if the matter has now reached the point where it would be well to have such a report brought down and find out just what has taken place. Property difficulties should not influence us in dealing with the situation.
I know that I have spoken emphatically. I do not desire to speak with any more heat than is necessary. I do not take the position of some who have been pressing recriminatory charges against this one and that one, and the government in particular. But coolly and calmly I have reasoned the matter out to my satisfaction, and I submit to the house that it would be the part of wisdom at the present time to lift the ban from all these organizations; with respect to those concerning which the committee did not report unanimously, but with much stronger reason.-which seems to me to be unassailable-with respect to those concerning which the committee did report unanimously.	.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: As a member of the defence of Canada regulations committee of last session, which committee made a report to this house on July 23, I should like to take this opportunity of saying a few words. During the two years that I was a member of the committee I enjoyed its deliberations very much, and I must agree with those hon. members who expressed the opinion that the consideration given to the various problems by the members and the deliberations of the committee were conducted with the utmost harmony. It is true that on many points we differed radically, but on the whole I can say that all the members honestly tried to see the other person's point of view. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that I am unable to be a member of the committee this year, but I had an opportunity to take a place on the reconstruction and reestablishment committee instead of this one, and I felt that as one of the younger members of the Progressive Conservative opposition, one representing a prairie point of view and one who has taken a great deal of interest in the matter of reconstruction in the councils of our party, I should accept that opportunity and go on the reconstruction committee. For that reason I am unable to continue on the defence of Canada regulations committee this year.

Last year's committee spent a great deal of time and effort in obtaining evidence relating to the various problems with which we had to deal. As is shown by the report there were some twenty-six meetings, all extending to two hours at least. We heard witnesses from various parts of this country and from as far away as Great Britain. We had the pleasure of hearing from that great and learned jurist Sir Norman Birkett, who is a high court judge in Great Britain and who for a long time was chairman of the advisory committee under the defence regulations of the United Kingdom. I have no hesitation in telling the house that Sir Norman Birkett impressed me greatly, not only on account of his learning and undoubted ability but also on account of his broad tolerance and his personal modesty.
We held our sessions in camera, for very obvious reasons. A great deal of the evidence that was given to us could not be made public because it was confidential. I had thought that many of the deliberations of the committee were also confidential. In fact, on one occasion when we came to some conclusions it was decided unanimously by all the members of the committee that nothing would be said about what had taken place until we were readjr to table the report in this house. But to my great astonishment, within twenty-four hours after we had all decided unanimously that nobody would say anything about it the newspapers had the whole story of everything that had taken place in the committee. One would almost have thought they had a dictaphone in the room; the report was so full.
At any rate information and evidence given to us were in large measure confidential, and it seemed to me at the time and seems to me now, even in the light of the discussion that has taken place here this afternoon and evening, that it is impossible to have a properly enlightened debate in this house in connection with the matters that were dealt with for the reasons that I have given; a great deal of this large amount of evidence, which took fifty or more hours to give, was confidential, and even if it was available on an occasion like this it would be impossible to place it properly before the house and present a proper interpretation of it.
This is not a debate on the report itself but a debate on the motion to set up a new committee this year. It does seem to me, however, that in any event it would not be feasible to have a debate on the report, because statements could be made and arguments advanced, as statements have been made and arguments have been advanced this evening, which could be refuted or answered

Defence of Canada Regulations
or substantiated only by quoting from the evidence, which for obvious reasons we cannot present here. I would remind the house that as usual the committee of last year contained a large majority of government supporters. Consequently it was able to reflect government policy and, as I thought, was set up for the purpose of being of assistance to the administration. This year again, quite naturally, the committee is preponderantly composed of members on the government benches; there are ten Liberals, three Progressive Conservatives, one Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and one Social Credit.
In connection with the work of this committee I am going to suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), along the lines that have been followed by other hon. members, that before it is asked to commence its work it should be advised as to the policy of the government with respect to the report which was tabled on July 23 last. As I pointed out, practically all the time of the committee was spent in considering those points which were the subject matter of the report, in hearing the evidence and listening to the arguments, and in point of fact there was no time to deal with anything else. It does seem to me that the committee which is in the process of being set up under this motion should be told whether or not it is required to deal with those questions which were the subject matter of last year's report, or whether it is not required to do so. There would be absolutely no sense in wasting the time of that committee and the time of witnesses in going over the whole ground again, hearing the type of evidence that was heard last year and all the rest of it. unless first we knew the attitude of the administration with respect to the work done last year. I invite the Minister of Justice, who undoubtedly will close this debate, to advise us with respect to these matters so that the committee now being constituted will be fully seized of the situation, and so that its position and its work may be clarified.
One point in connection with the recommendations of the committee has not been mentioned by any of the previous speakers in this debate. It is a recommendation which has nothing to do with the matter of evidence, and consequently I feel perfectly justified in dealing with it this evening. The defence of Canada regulations as they were in force at the time our committee dealt with this matter last year contained a subsection which at the time of our deliberations was known as 39B (2), and which I think is so known in the consolidated regulations for 1942. providing as follows:
It shall be a defence to any prosecution for an offence against regulation 39 or 39A to prove that the person accused intended in good faith merely to criticize or to point out errors or defects in the government of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of Canada or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice.
I need not read regulations 39 and 39A, but they have to do with the spreading of reports or the making of statements or utterances which are likely to cause disaffection or to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline or administration of any of his majesty's forces. However, I would direct particular attention to the fact that in these two regulations the words used with respect to the offence are "intended or likely" to cause disaffection or prejudice recruiting and so on. The committee considered section 39B (2) very carefully and recommended to the house that the words "or the conduct of the war" be added to it. The administration has not seen fit to adopt that recommendation, and I think the house should be given a clear explanation as to why that has not been done. The position is this. There have been delivered in this house during the last three weeks speeches which, if uttered on the public platform, could render the persons making them subject to prosecution under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations. Some of those speeches were intended to urge the administration to an even greater war effort. Some had to do with the labour situation in this country or with the armed forces. In many instances hon. members endeavoured to further a greater and better war effort; yet, if they had made their speeches on the public platforms, they might have been rendered liable to prosecution, because section 39B states:
No person shall act in any manner, spread reports, or make statements or utterances intended or likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of any of 'his majesty's forces.
If on the public platform the statement is made that Canada's war effort is not good enough; if on the public platform someone says, as hon. members have said in this house no doubt quite sincerely, that we have too many men in the armed forces and that we should reallocate our man-power, those statements might be held likely to prejudice the recruiting, discipline, training or administration of his majesty's forces, and the persons making those statements could be prosecuted. After considering this matter the committee decided that if the person making the statement could prove that he intended to act in good faith, he should not be prosecuted under these

Defence of Canada Regulations
regulations; yet for some reason which I cannot possibly understand the administration has refused to accept that recommendation. If those words were added the regulation would read like this, taking only the parts relevant to the point I am making:
It shall be a defence ... to prove that the person accused intended in good faith merely to criticize or to point out errors or defects in the conduct of the war. . . .
Surely we in this country, who are so fond of declaring Canada a free and democratic country, are entitled from a public platform, or wherever we may be, to make honest criticism of Canada's war effort, for the purpose of urging the administration to even greater efforts to bring about the defeat of our enemies.
The refusal of the administration to accept the recommendations of the committee which sat last year is nothing more or less than an attempt to continue the strangling of free speech in Canada. Unless the administration is prepared to accept this recommendation it is doing something to which the people of Canada are entirely opposed, and continuing a condition against which the united nations are fighting.
I pointed out at the beginning of my observations that the evidence before the committee was heard in camera, and I do not propose to discuss it before the house. I should, however, like to say one word in connection with a matter to which reference has been made by several other hon. members, namely, the continuation of the ban upon the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel strongly about this matter, both as a result of what I learned from sitting on the committee and from personal knowledge respecting prosecutions in western Canada. I urge upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the administration that this matter be carefully reviewed so as to ensure that prosecutions be instituted only for the commission of some act which would be prejudicial to Canada's war effort, and that they be not instituted simply because persons are Jehovah's Witnesses.
I say this because my information is that these people are Jehovah's Witnesses by conviction. In their minds they cannot be anything else. They can be prosecuted and banned; we can do anything we like with them, but so far as they are concerned they remain Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the position which nas arisen in some instances. Five or ten people might be gathered together in a home to read the Bible. The police may come along -and I believe this has happened in certain instances-and raid the home. The occupants of the house may be charged with being Jeho-

vah's Witnesses. They appear in court, and cannot deny their being Jehovah's Witnesses because, in their own hearts and souls they believe they are Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not up to me to endeavour to interpret their feelings, because I cannot quite understand them. Nevertheless I have endeavoured to do so, and my understanding is that they have what is known as a covenant with God to be Jehovah's Witnesses, and that when they are accused of being Jehovah's Witnesses they cannot possibly appear in court and deny the allegation. Consequently a prosecution is practically tantamount to a conviction, even though they may have done nothing prejudicial to Canada's war effort. They happen to be members of a sect from which they cannot in their own minds divorce themselves.
I seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and I most emphatically agree with the suggestion he made. I am pleased indeed that the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) has seen fit to adopt the suggestion. This has been a matter of considerable concern to many people across Canada over a number of years. They have felt that the whole matter of immigration and naturalization should be thoroughly convassed, and that it is the duty of members of parliament to see to it that the whole matter is reviewed.
I might point out that unless the points to which I have referred are cleared up, and if the committee is placed in a position again where it has to listen to the evidence it heard last year, it is possible it may not have time to deal with matters of naturalization and immigration. If the minister feels that the subject matter of last year's report should be considered by this year's committee, then it seems to me that the house should adopt the suggestion made by the committee which sat in 1941, namely, that a special committee be set up to consider immigration and naturalization only. We do not wish to be in a position again of having to put the matter off because the committee now to be constituted has not time to deal with it.
Many organizations in my part of the country have been giving careful consideration to naturalization, and have formulated certain ideas in connection therewith. They are anxiously awaiting the setting up of a body before which they may place their suggestions, with some hope of having them implemented. I commend the consideration given by the Secretary of State to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I certainly hope that, whether it be dealt with in the manner suggested by the hon. member or that suggested by myself, it be dealt with

Defence of Canada Regulations
in some way, and the duty we owe the country in this regard thereby discharged at this session of parliament.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I followed with considerable attention the attempt made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) to explain why the report of the committee brought in last year was not implemented. He may, or may not, have given a satisfactory explanation on technical grounds, but the fact remains that the people of the city in which I live feel very deeply in the matter, and so far as they are concerned it still stands that parliament did nothing with the report. Further, the government has done nothing with it in the interim between sessions of parliament. As I understand it, the ban on organizations such as the communist party was placed there by order in council. In other words, it could have been lifted at any time by the same process of order in council. It would have seemed to me particularly appropriate for the government to act upon the sense of the report tabled and to lift the ban, by order in council. Therefore I say that, despite the attempts of my hon. friend to explain the inaction at the last session, the fact remains that nothing has been done by parliament, or by the government he supports.
I feel I should like to underline the efforts made by other hon. members to persuade the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to give some indication to the house and to the new committee we are now in process of setting up as to what the attitude of the administration is or will be toward any report the committee may bring in. I dare to hope that this attitude may be such as to suggest to that committee that it bring in a report very soon along the lines recommended by the committee of last year, so that at an early stage we in this house may have an opportunity of passing upon such recommendations.
I wish to join with others in making it very clear that neither I nor the members of the group to which I belong have any illusions as to the policies of the communist party or as to their attitude, shall I say, toward our political group. In the city from which I come we find ourselves competing frequently, and at times we are political enemies. So far as we are concerned, that does not matter. There is a principle at stake. We believe in the four freedoms of the Atlantic charter; we believed in them before that document was enunciated. In particular, we feel that the principle of freedom of speech is something that should be held to, not merely in an abstract form, but in actual practice and in specific cases. We
feel that this holds with respect to the communist party, particularly now that it has been demonstrated that the members of that party are not in any way against our war effort, but in fact are perhaps the most zealous in the community at the present time.
In saying a few words on this subject, particularly with reference to the communist party, I believe that I speak not so much on behalf of the communist people of the city from which I come as for the average citizens of that city, the non-communists, those who share with me a dislike of some of the policies and the strategy of the communists. I may say that the average citizen finds it difficult to understand some of the inconsistencies that obtain at the present time, a number of which have been referred to already by other speakers who have preceded me.
For example, we have the fact that this war is being fought, shall I say, for the four freedoms and for certain other freedoms as well, and yet, by maintaining this ban on the communist party and on other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, we deny the principle of freedom of speech. There are also some inconsistencies of another kind. The communist party is banned, but we have released from internment camps the leaders of that party. The party is banned, and yet it carries on under such other names as workers' election committee and communist labour total war committee. I have in my hand a letter from this committee which is written on a printed letterhead.
We are proud of the fact that in Ottawa there is a legation of the Soviet Union. I imagine that in the library within that legation there are works on communist economics and principles, and yet we have the spectacle of books being destroyed in this country because they have been found in the libraries of people connected with the communist party. The party is banned, and yet a great number of demonstrations are being held in this country in honour of the Soviet Union. I am thinking in particular of a large gathering which was held not long ago in Winnipeg, the theme of which was a salute to the Soviet Union. It was arranged by a committee headed by men whom we all knew to be leaders of the communist party. We were glad to cooperate with them in making it a real success. The chairman of that huge meeting was at that time a prominent citizen of Manitoba who has since been taken away, Mr. John Bracken.
These inconsistencies are rather incidental to the fact that by means of this ban we are really saying that we do not believe in freedom of speech, while at the same time that

Defence of Canada Regulations
is supposed to be one of the aims for which we are fighting. We in this group contend that to maintain such an inconsistency is definitely inimical to our war effort. From conversations which I have had with people who are non-communists, even anti-communists, I have realized that their enthusiasm for the war effort has been dampened to some extent by this very fact. They wonder what it means for the post-war period in terms oi the freedoms for which we are fighting if we cannot grant these freedoms at the present time.
We in this group have pointed out on other occasions the misgivings that many people in this country have with respect to the postwar period. One set of fears which I have encountered relates to post-war foreign policy. I find that a great many people are wondering just how long the cordial attitude which we are now displaying toward the Soviet Union will continue after the war is over. What is going to be the line-up of forces among the great powers when this conflict has come to an end and we are face to face with the question of the kind of social order we are going to have in the various countries now joined together as the united nations? Many of those to whom I have spoken have felt that this ban on the communist party indicates a desire on the part of the government to be ready, after the war is over, to suppress the ideas held and advocated by the ally that just now means so much to us in the present war.


Mr. GRAY:: What is the present position of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation with respect to the Soviet Union?


Thomas Miller Bell: They are our allies,
are they not? As our allies in this war we are prepared to do all we can-


Ross Wilfred Gray: I did not ask the hon.
member.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member
asked the position of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and I rose to reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has given the answer of this group. At the present time the Soviet Union is an ally, a major ally, of this country, and our attitude toward them at the present time is one of deep appreciation for what they are doing for us. We are also anxious that the various united nations might be able to pool their ideas after the conflict is over as to the science of economics and the ways of ordering our social life so that we may make progress. I believe that

we have some contribution to make to the social and economic life of that country, and that they can make a contribution which will be of value to us. The fear of a great many people is that the powers that be in this country do not want any infiltration into our economic life of the concepts of socialism and cooperative government to be found in some cif these other countries. The fear is, I say, that the maintenance of this ban is part of that idea; and I suggest that if this ban could be lifted this would go a long way toward helping a great many people to feel that we are thoroughly sincere in our advocacy of the four freedoms and of a new order, a better world after this war is over.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly in connection with the motion calling for the setting up of this committee. I understand that a letter has been sent by the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council to the Minister of Justice, protesting strongly against the advertising which has appeared in newspapers throughout Canada, placed there by the Steel Company of Canada, and to which reference has already been made in this house. I understand that the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council has suggested-perhaps an even stronger word should be used-to the Minister of Justice that this company and, in fact, the newspapers which carried the advertising, should come in for the very close scrutiny of his department, as to whether this is not in fact subversive activity on the part of this company. I know that when the authorities, or even the defence of Canada regulations committee, go around looking for subversive activities they do not usually look in that direction, they look in the direction of groups politically to the left, or to religious sects which they cannot understand or which are out of the usual run of religious organizations. But I suggest that really subversive activity is to be found in the kind of thing which took place when that full-page advertisement appeared in all the large dailies of this country. I have received a great number of copies of this advertisement from Winnipeg, from people who were incensed by it. I emphasize the fact that the trades and labour council to which I have referred, as protesting this matter is connected with the American Federation of Labour, not with the Canadian Congress of Labour, which is the labour organization involved in the steel situation. In other words, this Winnipeg labour body is concerned with a principle. They protest the right of a large corporation to publish this advertising which slanders organized labour,

Defence of Canada Regulations
which speaks' disrespectfully of the whole principle of industrial democracy which is sacred to the workers of this dominion and which they feel is part of what this war is being fought for. I can say, from the correspondence I have had, and from the account of what took place far from Hamilton, in the city of Winnipeg in the trades and labour council last week, that the workers of this country find this kind of thing very hard to understand. In fact, despite their utmost loyalty to the war effort, despite all the offers they have made, despite their efforts to be accepted by the government as full partners in the prosecution of the war, they find their enthusiasm cooled by this sort of thing, which seems to suggest to them that all the talk about the right to organize, collective bargaining, and a better deal for labour when the war is over, does not really amount to very much. This thing, I suggest, is subversive; and if the Department of Justice or the defence of Canada regulations committee are really keen and eager to trace down subversive activity, something which is inimical to our war effort, which dampens people's enthusiasm for it, or raises questions as to the validity of the things we are fighting for, they should take some time away from chasing communists and Jehovah's Witnesses and track down this kind of thing.
I regret very much that as yet the government has not had anything to say of any consequence in this connection. One day last week the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) what he thought of this bit of advertising. I believe the reply of the Prime Minister was to the effect that he did not imagine it would make much difference what he thought. I hope that before this debate is concluded the Minister of Justice will give us some statement. Perhaps he will tell us whether he has received letters from the Winnipeg trades council, and possibly some other organizations, and will give us some statement as to whether or not his department regards such advertising as something which should go unchecked. After all, if anything of that size by way of advertising were published in the papers of this country slandering the armed forces, we know what would happen. We have in Canada a great body of working people whose sons and daughters are in the armed forces, who themselves are working hard, making their contribution to the war effort; and for them to be slandered in this way is something they feel they ought not to have to take, and something which raises questions in their minds as to what is going to happen after the war is over.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I join with others in expressing the hope that we may hear shortly from the Minister of Justice as to the desire of the government with respect to this committee. Is the government prepared for the committee to make a report fairly soon regarding lifting the ban, for example, on the communist party? I think also we should hear from the minister whether his department, or under his direction, this committee, will be given authority to track down all subversive activities, not only the kind for which they have looked so far, but the kind to which I have drawn attention in referring to the recent advertising throughout the dominion by the Steel Company of Canada.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: I should like to say a few words only to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the opposition group from Quebec has no representative on this important committee. As a matter of fact, of fifteen members of that committee, there are only three from Quebec. This committee will have to deal with very important matters, and I would humbly submit to the minister the nomination of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) to the committee. He is a brilliant lawyer, and I am sure he would render valuable services to the committee and to the country as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to take only a minute to present a case to the minister. I am not going to traverse the ground which has already been covered by many speakers regarding the recommendations of last year's committee, but I merely ask that one aspect of this question be dealt with in the committee which I do not believe has been dealt with in years gone by. I refer to those who have been interned under the defence of Canada regulations, who are, as I understand it, allowed to have hearings before an advisory committee, and the minister on the advice of that committee decides whether or not they shall be released.
I can understand that in the early stages of the war, and particularly in the very dark days of the summer of 1940, it was better to be safe than to be sorry, and many people had to be rounded up and put out of the way where they could do no harm, until such time as we could make sure whether or not they were going to be a menace to the safety of the state. That was done in Great Britain, where many persons were rounded up who afterwards were found to be innocent. No one can blame a government for doing that when the safety of the nation is threatened, but that is now over three years ago and I

Defence of Canada Regulations
wonder whether the minister has set up any machinery for making a more careful investigation into some of these cases. I can give a particular case which I have had an opportunity of investigating at first hand, and if it is typical of others, then there are people in this country who, I am afraid, are suffering great injustice.
This is a case which I referred to the minister a considerable time ago, namely, that of a man named Alois Zieglansberger under the file number of the Department of Justice, 16-395. Here is a man who was interned on July 27, 1940. His internment number at Petawawa is P.W. 1098. This man is a British subject of German origin. Eighteen months before war was declared he and his wife were at another person's home in the northern settlements of Saskatchewan, and in the course of an argument about economic conditions in Canada, and world conditions generally, he was alleged, by the man with whom he was arguing, to have made pro-nazi statements. There were as many people there who claimed that there were no pro-nazi statements made as there were those who claimed that there had been. On the strength of information laid by the other man who was partner to the heated discussion, this man was interned on July 27, 1940. I made representations to the minister. I have a number of letters on file which I will not take the time to read. The advisory committee, on going over the case, recommended that the detention should continue. I took no further action in the matter. If the advisory committee, after examining the facts, felt that was all they could do, then there was nothing more for me to do or for the Minister of Justice.
This fall I had occasion to go into the district. This man lived at Pierceland, Saskatchewan, over a hundred miles from railway, telephone or doctor, up in the bush settlements. I went through that scattered community and talked to people of all shades of opinion. I could find no one except the particular man who laid the information who would say that the interned man had any pronazi sentiments. I found that 12S people in that scattered community, covering a considerable area, had signed a petition and sent it to the minister, assuring him that, knowing this man as they did, as a good husband and citizen and a thrifty worker, they had no doubt that there had been some miscarriage of justice.
I met the man's wife, a young woman in her twenties, with three small children, living on a Saskatchewan homestead, doing all the work herself, sawing wood, driving horses and
[Mr. T. C. Douglas.)
doing the chores. She had driven several miles in a snowstorm-the night I was there it was almost thirty degrees below zero

to come into town to see me about her husband's case. She brought her children with her because she had no one with whom to leave them. For over two years this woman has been without any support except what she could obtain with her own hands to maintain herself and her three children. I tell you, Mr Speaker, talking to that woman dressed in overalls, a man's clothing, fingernails broken, hands blistered from doing all the chores, and listening to the flimsy basis on which her husband has been held for over two years in an internment camp, I was almost ashamed of the way in which British justice, in which I had always had such great pride, was being administered in this country. I think that cases like that ought to be thoroughly investigated. They ought to be based on something more than information laid by some disgruntled individual in a community, and I should like to have some assurance from the minister tonight, now that we have more time, that machinery will be set up to go more fully into oases such as this. Compare this man's case with some others I could mention. It is no secret that in Saskatchewan the. Deutsch Bund organization was strong prior to the outbreak of the war, and I have good reason to know that. Speaking in my own constituency about the aims at world domination which Hitler had, and speaking against the Munich pact, I was warned on several occasions by officers of the Deutsch Bund that it would be a good idea to keep quiet. None of these men was interned. One was arrested one evening, but before five, o'clock next morning, he was released and he joined the army.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How was he released?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know how he was released, though I have heard it stated that he was released to join the army. Here were people who were members of a nazi organization, active in their support of the nazi philosophy; and here is a man who, from all the evidence which I can gather from his neighbours and from people who, while not his friends, knew something about him and his circumstances, was not a member of a nazi organization, was not even sympathetic to the nazis. He was of German origin, and in the course of a heated argument eighteen months before war was declared he said certain things which a man who was arguing with him declared to be pro-nazi. Well, if all the people who said things in a heated argument about economic conditions in Canada and throughout the world generally were to be interned-

Defence of Canada Regulations


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the hon. member suggest that that situation is general in his riding? Surely that is an unusual situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the hon. member, on more sober reflection, will agree that even if this were the only case, it warrants investigation. And if this case has not been thoroughly investigated, and my two or three days in the district led me to believe that it had not, then there may be others, I suggest to the minister that the advisory committee-it may be necessary to set up two or three advisory committees-should go over these cases and sift the evidence more carefully. In a community ninety or a hundred miles away from a railway it is not easy to send in police to make an investigation, but an investigation should be made as quickly as possible and the evidence more thoroughly sifted, because we should not have any group of people feeling that a man has been interned merely on the basis of what an informer says, or merely because someone who did not like him has reported him to the police.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the statement on which the gentleman to whom he is referring was interned was made eighteen months before war broke out?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what I am told. The statement he is alleged to have made was made eighteen months before the outbreak of war.
I want to say this in closing. I know it is not popular to espouse unpopular causes. The fact remains that as long as there are any people in this country whose liberties are being restricted, whose freedom of worship has been abrogated, whose rights and privileges are ' being interfered with, none of us are free. Even a single case like this, if it is a miscarriage of justice, this house and this committee which it is proposed to set up have a serious responsibility to see that machinery, if it is not already in existence, is set up by the Department of Justice, to examine such cases, and if these men have been unjustly interned, to have them returned to their homes, while if they are justly interned some provision should be made by the federal government to take care of their wives and dependents.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not wish to question the hon. member; I know he is sincere in what he has said, but I hope he will give the Minister of Justice the name or names of those he is now mentioning.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have already given the minister the man's name and number in the internment camp. The minister already has a file on this man.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter that I think might well be brought to the attention of the house at this time with a view to securing from the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) a statement respecting the prosecution last June or at least the setting in motion of the wheels of prosecution against Colonel George Drew. The hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) dealt at some length with the sections of the defence of Canada regulations in question and in particular referred to sections 39 and 39A. If there is one thing that we should guard against in the use of the regulations it is that they be not used in any way by the government of the day in prosecutions that have all the appearance of political prosecutions.
The hon. member for Saskatoon City pointed out that the government had not accepted the recommendation of the committee in respect of the defences that can be raised to prosecutions under section 39, which provides that no person shall spread reports, or make statements or utterances intended or likely to cause disaffection to his majesty or act in any manner, spread reports or make statements or utterances intended or likely to prejudice recruiting ; act in any manner, spread reports or make statements or utterances, intended or likely to be prejudicial to the safety of the state or the efficient prosecution of the war.
The hon. member pointed out that the government had not accepted the recommendation made by the committee; that among the aefences that would be open to a person charged under section 39 would be that the person intended in good faith to criticize "the conduct of the war." The defence of Canada regulations are a very good example of what I was endeavouring to bring before parliament this afternoon when I criticized the government for using regulations instead of statutes of parliament. As the regulations now stand, any man in this country is liable to prosecution although his purpose is to improve the war effort of this dominion, if his words are likely to interfere with the war effort. There is not a statement that any honest, patriotic citizen could make that is likely to prejudice recruiting that cannot be construed as coming within the provisions of section 39. We saw an example of that last summer in the prosecution of George Drew. The law was set in motion, he was brought before the courts. No man in Canada, not even the Minister of Justice, who must have given permission for the starting of the action, believed that the words which were used by George Drew were not those of a patriotic Canadian citizen, a

Defence of Canada Regulations
returned soldier with a gallant record, a man whose sole purpose was to improve the Canadian war effort.
He was brought before the court. The charge was then withdrawn. If the charge had been gone ahead with and the law had been interpreted in accordance with the decision of the court of appeal of Ontario and, I believe, a decision of the court of appeal of British Columbia, however high-minded, however patriotic his intentions, however desirous he was of improving the war effort of this dominion, he was guilty of the offence if he used words that were "likely to prejudice recruiting". If the amendment suggested by the committee had been accepted by this government and the words recommended had been added to section 39B (2) a defence would have been afforded thereby. Why were those words not accepted? The time has come, I believe, when the Minister of Justice should give a full, frank, clear and definite statement to this house and the country as to the reasons for the commencement of that prosecution, as to whether the department really believed, when it permitted that prosecution to be laid, that George Drew had committed an offence akin to sedition and not far removed from treason.
The withdrawal of the charge shows clearly that the government realized that a grave mistake had been committed and a grave injustice done to Colonel Drew. The time has come when the Minister of Justice should on behalf of the government of this country state the facts, and if a mistake was made, as apparently one was, in commencing the prosecution, that an apology should be offered on behalf of the government.
The defence of Canada regulations are necessary; they must be stringent in time of war, but let it never be said that these regulations might be used for the prosecution of those who are opposed to the government. An example of the danger occurred the other day in this house when with reference to an article written by Commander MacLean, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), after replying to the article, made the statement that at the present time the authorities were considering the prosecution of this man under the defence of Canada regulations. At that time the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) made a statement that I thought was particularly apt. His statement was that the minister had said either too much or too little. Almost a week has passed by since that statement was made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and one begins to question whether or not once more the defence of Canada

regulations are being threatened to be used in a manner designed to prevent fair and proper criticism. They should never be used except to punish unfair and untrue criticism or criticism designed to bring or that may well bring solace to the enemy or be prejudicial to the state. I trust that the Minister of Justice when he replies will give us the facts of the Drew case. If amends should be made, as I believe they should, for the commencement of that prosecution which ended in a withdrawal on the recommendation of the special counsel employed by the crown, I hope the minister will make them by frankly admitting that a mistake was made.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I
should like to say a word in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and particularly to say something in regard to the solemnity of naturalization proceedings. A little over a year ago I had the good fortune to attend a United States court which was naturalizing several new Americans and making them citizens. The proceedings were extremely impressive. First the judge told them very simply what were the duties of a citizen. Each man read the United States constitution and then the declaration of independence. Each was questioned carefully on both these foundation-stones of American liberty. There was no question in my mind, or in>
the mind of the judge, that they understood what they were doing and appreciated the responsibilities of citizenship. Those men left that court imbued with a sense of patriotism and Americanism, their hearts filled with pride. We should do more to make our new citizens feel that it is a great thing to be a Canadian. So many of us seem to go about thinking it a rather shameful thing to belong to Canada. We rvant to get over that, and when these men come before the courts to take the oath of allegiance and complete the great step of becoming a citizen of this country they should be impressed with the fact that they are doing something of which they should be proud. Therefore I am pleased to support the amendment that has been moved.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: In just a word I should like
to support the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence), though not precisely by reason of the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I refer to the recommendation of the committee that an additional case for exemption be included at the end of regulation 39B. As it stands now, a person may be prosecuted under regulations

Defence oj Canada Regulations
39, 39A or 39C for making a great variety of utterances. It is a defence to any such prosecution if the person accused shows that in good faith he intended to criticize the government of Canada or its provinces, or the administration of justce. There were brought before the committee concrete cases, not the one mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre, of prosecutions in which there should have been a defence available to the accused on the ground stated by the committee, namely, that in good faith the accused had intended to criticize the conduct of the war.
The committee had in mind two sorts of conduct of the war. First we had in mind the conduct of the war outside Canada. A great part of the war may be conducted outside Canada by our allies, by joint boards or by various other agencies, and it should be perfectly proper for any Canadian in good faith to criticize those bodies if, in his opinion, they are affecting the conduct of the war. It was argued before the committee that in any such case the accused would have no defence provided that the prosecution found a case under regulation 39, 39A or 39C, so that for that reason this addition was suggested. There was also the additional reason that there might be some difference between the government of Canada and the agencies of the government of Canada. It might be excusable to criticize the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), but not his general staff. It might be permissible to criticize the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), though I am sure no one would wish to do so, but not the officers administering the defence of Canada regulations. It might be permitted to criticize the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), but not the contractors working for him. Therefore, to provide for those cases these words were suggested, and for the further reason that there are other agencies conducting the war in addition to the government of Canada.
When the regulation was under discussion in the committee I do not think it is a breach of confidence to say there was no objection to it. As far as I can remember we spent a good deal of time in trying to find a form of words which would meet the various cases. I do not think any formal vote was taken; certainly there was no material objection, and the proposed amendment met with the substantial support and acquiescence of the committee. We thought we were dealing with a situation which had not been contemplated at the time the regulations were drafted, that we were really making what was a drafting correction. Consequently I
hope the Minister of Justice will consider the
recommendation of the committee once more. It may be, of course, that reasons were placed before him which were not given to us as to why it should not be adopted, but certainly the committee did not hear any reasons to that effect, and I hope the minister and the government will give further consideration to the recommendation in question.


Clarence Gillis: I will be as brief and as explicit as possible in what I have to say, because I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) wishes to make a statement and to have the motion passed. I wish to make reference to two matters which were not discussed by the defence of Canada regulations committee last session, and my reason for mentioning them now is to bring them to the attention of the committee that is to be set up.
The first matter I desire to mention is in reference to the internment of Italians in Canada. A great deal ha9 been said about other organizations and other people who came under the defence of Canada regulations, but I think the people to whom I am referring were treated about as unjustly as anyone. In the section of the country I have the honour to represent there were about two hundred Italians picked up, but to the best of my knowledge there was very little evidence upon which infractions of the regulations could be based. For years in that section of Canada there was an acute unemployment situation, and an agitation was carried on to displace those people so as to create employment for those who were termed citizens of Canada. Upon Italy's entry into the war that was seized upon as an excuse to pick up these Italians, holus-bolus, and intern them. I knew many of those men personally, and I am reasonably sure that great injustices were perpetrated against them.
I have made representations on behalf of a few of them, and some have been released. However, others are still retained in custody, and evidently very little has been done about their cases. On two or three occasions I have brought the matter to the attention of the house. I suggest that when this committee sits some attention should be paid to the operations of the internment bureau, and special inquiries should be made as to why such a large percentage of Italians are being held in custody.
I shall not elaborate at greater length on the point, because the departmental records contain complete files of people of that nationality. I suggest, however, that the committee

Defence of Canada Regulations
should pay particular attention to this phase of the matter. Absolutely nothing was done about it at the last session of parliament, and it is for that reason I should like to bring one particular case to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). The man I have in mind was named John Dornig, of New Waterford, Nova Scotia. He was a man of more than sixty years of age, and at the time of his internment was in poor health. During his incarceration he was under the doctor's care. A few months ago, after many representations to the department, he was released, and shortly thereafter received the following letter from the custodian of alien enemy property:
Department of the Secretary of State
Ottawa, January 29, 1913.
Dear Sir:
The custodian's out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the investigation into the administration of your affairs during your internment amounts to $100.
I shall be glad accordingly to receive a money order for this amount.
That man spent about two years in an internment camp, and while there he was ill. He lost in sickness and accident insurance about $2,500 which he would have received had he not been interned. Now, for carrying on an investigation to satisfy himself that the man was wrongly interned-and that has been proven by virtue of the fact that he was released-the custodian of alien enemy property wants him to pay $100. Surely that is something which should be examined by the committee studying the defence of Canada regulations. Some will say that the expense was incurred in connection with the administration of some of his property. I know this man has no property, and in my opinion the charge is for no reason other than that of making an examination into the files to ascertain whether or not he should be released. I leave these matters to the committee. There are cases I have been attempting to adjust by correspondence and personal representations where I am reasonably sure great injustice is being done.
There is one further matter I should like to mention. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) took considerable time to prove to the house that someone other than himself was responsible for the report of the committee not being lifted from the table. My understanding of his explanation, and my knowledge with respect to the report of the committee presented just prior to the adjournment of the house, lead me to the belief that he proved conclusively that he accepted the responsibility for the com-
[Mr. Gillis.l
mittee's report not being lifted. He stated first that he had notified Mr. Speaker in accordance with the regulations that he was prepared to move for the lifting of the report from the table. Under the regulations, after his notification no other hon. member was privileged to move for the lifting of the report. The matter stayed in abeyance in that manner until just before the adjournment of the house. I say, therefore, that if he had not notified the Speaker that he -was going to take that action, someone in this group would have done so. I believe to-night that with all his juggling of the English language with respect to the matter of lifting the report he proved conclusively that he was personally responsible for the fact that some other hon. member did not make a similar motion.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister closes the debate there are two observations by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) concerning which I think some comment should be made.


Thomas Vien: If the minister speaks he will be speaking to the amendment, and will not be closing the debate. The amendment will have to be disposed of, and, following that, the main motion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Yukon suggested that those of us who were asking that the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should be practised in war time are possibly communists. He mentioned that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was the only member of this group who made it clear that his sympathies were not with the communist party. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) who spoke this evening was opposed at the last general election by a communist candidate. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) and I were opposed by officials of the communist party in Saskatchewan. I felt at that time that the communist group were following along lines which were nob in the best interest of democracy, or in the best interests of Canada and her war effort. But it seems strange that those leading officials of the communist party were permitted to stand as candidates in a general election. I did not suggest they should be interned. I believed we had a cause which could stand up to any criticism they might offer, and I am glad to say that no member of our organization endeavoured to have communist opponents placed in internment camps.
The hon. member for Yukon suggested that if hostilities between Germany and Russia came to an end, the communists would be on the side of Germany. I consider that this

Defence of Canada Regulations
does an injustice to one of our great allies, namely, Russia. Those who make statements of that kind fail to understand the fundamental differences between communism and fascism. And to suggest that those in Canada who are friends of the Soviet Union are not whole-heartedly concerned with seeing that Germany is completely defeated is simply a refusal to face facts.
I wish to voice the hope that in the near future the recommendations made last year by the committee will be acted upon by the government. I refer to the lifting of the ban on the communist party, and consideration of the status of Jehovah's Witnesses and Technocracy.


Thomas Vien: I wish to point out that this amendment is not relevant to the motion, and its acceptance may create a dangerous precedent. The amendment proposes to graft on to the motion to appoint a committee to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations, 1941, a new question, namely, the consideration of the law relating to naturalization and deportation. There is no relevancy between these two propositions. Amendments must deal with the same subject-matter as the motion they are intended to modify. A member could not, for instance, on a motion to appoint a committee to review the Criminal Code move that the committee will also review the Companies Act. The subject-matter mentioned in the notice must be strictly adhered to, or else there would be no limit and the motion to appoint a committee would open the door to all kinds of investigations of the whole administration.
I am informed that there is some agreement to accept this amendment, but I can allow it only if no exception is taken to its regularity and on condition that its adoption will not be a precedent and be binding upon me. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) wishes to speak he will be speaking solely on the amendment. After the amendment has been disposed of, the house will then deal with the main motion, amended or not amended as the house may decide. Then the minister may reply, but when he does so he will close the debate.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT: I expressed to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that I had no objection to the amendment because I had discussed it with the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) and with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). The reason why we thought it could be accepted as an amendment to the motion has been indicated in some of
the discussion here to-night. It was suggested that it might be desirable to have some provision for the possible deportation of those whom it has been found necessary to intern as enemies under the defence of Canada regulations. On account of that connection it did not strike me that the amendment was altogether foreign to the main motion. Consideration might be given as to whether or not persons whom it has been found necessary to intern under the defence of Canada regulations should be deported. For that reason the amendment might be looked upon as being connected with the main motion, and there probably would be no embarrassing precedent for Your Honour if you were to allow the amendment to be accepted.


Thomas Vien: I would point out to the minister that his remarks do not cover the question of naturalization. There is no provision in the defence of Canada regulations with regard to naturalization.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There was a provision in the defence of Canada regulations which treated as enemy aliens those persons who were of the races at war with the united nations and who had been naturalized since 1922.


Thomas Vien: I just wish to point out to the minister that while his explanation does give a degree of relevancy to the amendment, I am not altogether satisfied that the principle which is being enunciated to-day is a proper one for the house to accept, namely, to import into a motion before the house another subject matter not relevant to the main subject-matter. I wish that to be noted. That is my opinion. The question is on the amendment.	'
Amendment (Mr. Green) agreed to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that hon. members will not expect me in the few minutes that remain before eleven o'clock to answer all the observations that have been made in something over three hours of debate. This is merely a motion to set up again a committee for the examination of the defence of Canada regulations. A question was addressed to the Prime Minister on February 5 by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) as to whether or not it was the intention to set up again this committee as in previous years to deal with the defence of Canada regulations. That was the first reason for the motion. The second reason was that the committee of last year recommended that it be reconstituted this year to examine the situation as it may exist at this

Defence of Canada Regulations
time. The third reason was that all the recommendations made in the report were considered. Certain of them were adopted in the forms suggested by the committee, and other modifications to the regulations were made. It was felt desirable to have the committee consider whether or not the modifications which had been made would have any effect upon the general recommendations.
One modification was dealt with by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and had to do with adding new words to section 39B of the defence of Canada regulations. This section provides that it shall be a defence to any prosecution for a violation of the section to prove that the person accused intended in good faith merely to criticize or to point out errors or defects in the government of Canada. It was suggested that the words "and the conduct of the war" should be added. This was given serious consideration, and the defence departments had serious objections to the amendment in those terms and suggested the modification which was made to regulation 16.
If and when this committee is reconstituted the officials of the defence departments will, I assume, come before the committee and explain what objections they have to the general form of the recommendation that was made. Personally I could see no serious objection to adopting that recommendation, and the law officers in the department could see no serious objection. The matter was discussed with the defence departments over a period of weeks in an effort to arrive at some formula which they considered could be inserted without danger to the safety of the state. The officers of the defence departments will be in position to give what reasons they have for the view that it would be improvident to have an amendment in those terms to section 39B.
With respect to the Jehovah's Witnesses I must say that I know nothing about them. There has not been a prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses authorized in the department since I have been connected with it'. There was a recommendation made with respect to a large number of organizations which appeared to me to be to the effect that the regulation interfered with freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. There was inserted as an addition to paragraph 39C the following:
No person shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation by reason only of his attending a meeting, the sole purpose of which is religious Worship or instruction.

That has been added, and will be before the committee to consider whether or not it is a sufficient safeguard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While it is true that none of these prosecutions has come from his department, is it not true that the attorneys-general of the different provinces, and even magistrates, have carried on prosecutions against these people merely for having Bibles in their possession?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is not to my knowledge that such is the situation. I will not say it has not happened; I do not know. I have, no knowledge of any prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I know that none has come to my attention in the department since I have come there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There were
eleven last week, I think.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to the supposed illogical situation in which the department would be because communists have been released from custody and because the ban has not been removed, I might say that all those who have been released from custody have been released not because they were communists but because they said that they wanted to help in our war effort and because they individually signed undertakings that they would
.	.	. not participate in any propaganda or
other activities of the communist party of Canada or of any organization over which the communist party exercises control, or of any other association, group, society, or organization declared to be illegal under regulation 39C of the defence of Canada regulations.
If they have not complied with that undertaking it is not because they did not give it. They were released upon the distinct understanding and upon the assertion that they were the most ardent anti-fascists who could be found anywhere, and that they were not asking to be released for the purpose of carrying on communistic propaganda, but that they were asking to be released because they wanted to help us win the war. If instead of doing that they have done something else they have violated the undertaking. There have been certain representations that this has been done. I have had these representations investigated, and I have not yet been satisfied, with respect to any of these organizations which have been mentioned, that it would be possible to establish before a court of justice that it was an organization "over which the communist party exercises control."
As to the communist party itself and its doctrines I am not speaking for the government. I stated very clearly last year what

Dejence of Canada Regulations
my own views were. I considered that the communist party is illegal, not only because it is declared to be so in the defence of Canada regulations, but because its aims are contrary to the criminal code and because, when section 98 was struck from the criminal code, section 133 was amended by adding thereto the following:
Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression "seditious intention" everyone shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who publishes, or circulates any writing, printing or document in which it is advocated, or who teaches or advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force, as a means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada.
There is a clear distinction to be drawn between people who advocate the use of force without the authority of law as a means of accomplishing governmental changes in Canada, and the government of our Russian allies. I am quite sure that if we or any group of people from Canada were to go to Russia and to advocate the use of force to overthrow the Russian government, our organization would be looked upon in Russia as subversive and seditious.
The fact that these people have been released, or that those who adhere to their doctrines are now outspoken advocates of a substantial or total war effort, does not detract from their original aims; and quite recently language which I will quote before the committee was used by one of them at a meeting which was attended, not by persons who had been interned and released, but by others who were formerly known to be members of the communist party. And right here I may say that, at the same time that the other amendment about freedom of worship was made, regulation 39C was amended to make it an offence, not to belong to the communist party -those were the terms in which the article previously existed-but to act as a member or as an officer of the party. So that the intellectual adherence to the doctrines would not be an offence. The offence would merely be constituted by some overt act to further-the aims of the organization. The amended regulation now reads:
Every person who acts as an officer or member of an illegal organization or who advocates or defends the acts, principles or policy of such illegal organization, shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why, if the criminal code is as it is, is the regulation necessary? Why not lift the ban?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Because, if the ban in the defence of Canada regulations were re- moved, it would be asserted all over Canada, and believed by a great-many people, that the aim of the national council for democratic rights had been achieved; that the great issue of democracy which they have stated in a number of their publications had been realized, and that the legality of the communist party had been asserted affirmatively by this parliament. This is from one of their publications:
Why should the legality of the communist party be an endorsation of communism, any more than the legality of the Conservative ' party would be an endorsation of Conservative tenets?


Gordon Graydon: Do not forget that
"Progressive", too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do not you forget it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The publication to which I referred also contains this:
Is Mr. St. Laurent, on the basis of political prejudice, to be allowed to determine what organizations and groups shall be legal or illegal in Canada? Is his personal opinion to be the measure of freedom of organization? . . . Since when does freedom of association and conscience depend upon agreements or disagreements with creeds by a minister of the crown ? . . .
If the personal opinion of a minister of the crown, who dislikes a given political theory, is to be the principle upon which the democratic fabric of Canada is to operate, then, no group, no organization, no religious belief or any creed is safe-all will be at the mercy of the prejudices of this minister.
That is what will be taken to be the meaning of lifting the ban in the defence of Canada regulations; and one of those who was released, Mr. Tim Buck, in a number of speeches said that what was wanted was the lifting of the ban to make the communist party a legal organization in Canada; and that if the ban were lifted, the impression throughout the country would be that something had been done by this parliament to make the communist party as legal a party as the Progressive Conservative party, to which some of the pamphlets attempt to liken it. I think that would be giving serious encouragement to propagating a doctrine which now is contrary to the criminal code, and is so under an amendment which was recognized as designed to have that effect when it was inserted in the code; because, if hon. members will look at the debate which took place in 1936, they will find Mr. Woodsworth saying to the then Minister of Justice that he was taking away with one hand what he was giving with the other by repealing section 98. And notwithstanding the logic of the reproach

Defence of Canada Regulations
that was then being made to the Minister of Justice, this house saw fit to do what the then Minister of Justice proposed, and to add to section 133 a paragraph which amounted in fact to taking away with one hand what was being given, by the repeal of section 98, as to its substantial provision, with the other hand.


Thomas Miller Bell: The then Minister of Justice denied that he was doing that. That is my recollection.	*
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If my hon. friend wishes to read the debate he will find that it was on June 19, 1936.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He will find it on pages 3900 and following of Hansard of that year. I have read two or three times the whole debate, and the hon. gentleman will find that the then Minister of Justice persisted and merely accepted one suggestion, namely, that the amendment be restricted to advocating the use of force to bring about governmental changes within Canada. The amendment at first had been drawn in general terms-to bring about governmental changes. It was suggested that this might extend to governmental changes anywhere, and it was restricted to governmental changes within Canada. I think that all other matters dealt with by hon. members can be quite fully gone into in committee. Everyone seems to be desirous to have the committee set up, and since we have now taken over three and a half hours to say "yes" to the motion, I suggest that the question be put and the motion carried, so that the committee can get down to its business and obtain in more accurate form all the information required.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister going to let the matter stand as it is without making any explanation with respect to the Colonel Drew matter raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	With respect to
Colonel George Drew? I did not intend at this time to make any statement in that connection. If I felt there was any apology due to Colonel George Drew, I would not hesitate to make it, but knowing the facts that I know, my opinion is that I owe him no apology.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, February 23, 1943