1944-07-17

Mr. DIEFENBAICER:: 1.	How many men who enlisted in the army for overseas service are there at present in Canada?
2.	Of these, how many are, (a) members of the veterans guard; (b) in categories which render them unsuitable for overseas service; (c) are necessarily retained in this country for organizational or staff duties?
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax);
1.	Including those in territories adjacent to Canada, approximately 140,000 of whom probably 50,000 or more are or can be made available as reinforcements for overseas service.
2.	(a) Approximately 8,500.
(b)	Excluding those in the veterans guard there are approximately 50,000 who are of an age or military category such that they would not normally be sent overseas. Individuals among these may be sent overseas for special duty.
In addition, there are approximately 25,000 who, while not definitely unsuitable for overseas service, are in age groups, medical categories, or ranks such that only a limited number of them can be absorbed within establishments of the army overseas.
(c)	Excluding those referred to in (a) and (b) above, there are approximately 10,000 employed on the staffs of administrative, training and servicing units in Canada.
As many as possible of these are being withdrawn for overseas service, but some will no doubt have to be retained permanently in Canada because their duties require fit general service volunteers or because of special knowledge and experience which makes it difficult to obtain suitable replacements.



VICTORY BONDS PURCHASED BY SOLDIERS

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	If a soldier purchases a victory bond on the instalment plan and is posted as missing, what happens in regard to the unpaid balance?
2.	If a soldier purchasing victory bonds on the instalment plan is killed before completing the transaction, what happens to the amount paid on the bond?
3.	Is it refunded to the next of kin?
4.	If so, is the interest allowed?

Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax);
1 and 2. When a soldier is missing or dies.
(a)	If the casualty occurred prior to the end of the fifth month of the instalment period and advice thereof is received prior to the end of the sixth (and final) month of the instalment period, the assignment of pay for the purchase of the bond is cancelled retroactive to its commencement and the instalments so far deducted are recredited to the soldier's pay account. Where such advice is not received prior to the end of the sixth (and final) month, purchase of the bond would be cpmpleted.
(b)	If the casualty occurred during the sixth (and final) month of the instalment period purchase of the bond would be completed.
(Note: Under article 83 F.R. & I. (Canada) the pay and allowances (except subsistence allowance) of a soldier who dies or is reported missing are credited to the end of the month in which the casualty occurs. Therefore, the purchase of a bond is completed only in those cases where the casualty occurred during the sixth month or where advice of a casualty which occurred prior thereto is received subsequent to the end of the sixth month. In the latter case, an overpayment of assigned pay results which may be recovered from any credit balance accruing in the soldier's pay account.)
3.	In those cases where the death, etc. of the soldier necessitates cancellation of the assignment of pay, the deductions recredited to the pay account form part of the service estate of the soldier and are transferred to the administrator of estates for distribution to those entitled thereto by law. This procedure is in accordance with the terms of the soldier's application for purchase of the bond.
Where purchase of the bond has been completed the person entitled thereto will receive the bond in accordance with the instructions given by the soldier in his application for purchase of the bond, or if the bond is deposited with the Department of Finance for safekeeping, that department will surrender it to the administrator of estates for inclusion in the service estate of the soldier.
4.	Where purchase of a bond is completed, the interest accrues to those entitled thereto, either by receipt of the bond itself, or through distribution of the soldier's service estate.
In those cases where the purchase of a bond by assignment of pay is cancelled owing to the death, etc., of the soldier, pro rata payments of interest on the instalments recredited to the pay account are not made as no authority exists for such payments, nor are they provided for in the terms of the soldier's application for purchase of a bond.

Questions
radio BROADCASTING-COMPLIMENTARY DINNER TO THE PRIME MINISTER ON AUGUST 7


Mr. DORION:: In view of the fact that, on the evening of the 7th of August next, there will he a political rally at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, and a provincial election will be held in Quebec on the 8th of August, what means will the government take to prevent, on those two occasions, infringement of section 22, subsection 4 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I had better answer this question. It evidently relates to the recognition of the twenty-fifth anniversary of my appointment as leader of the Liberal party by my fellow members in parliament who are generously tendering me a complimentary dinner on that evening at the Chateau Laurier.


Mr. GRAYDON:: It is not a surprise, then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that it was a surprise to me to see references in the papers to matters pertaining to this occasion of which I had no knowledge whatever. Among others was a reference to the fact that a nation-wide broadcast would be made by myself on that evening.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: National
headquarters got the wires crossed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No-if my
hon. friend will just be courteous and allow me to make my statement. I should like to have the position made perfectly clear. When I sawT in the press the statement that at the dinner there would be a broadcast by myself I immediately felt that some persons, perhaps a good many more than I had reason to feel might so regard it, might think that the occasion had been arranged from some political motive and that any address or remarks by myself on that evening would be made for purposes of furthering some political end.
I immediately ascertained who among my friends had the matter more immediately in hand. I not only spoke to them, but I put myself on record in a letter in which I stated that much as I appreciated the compliment of the dinner I felt I would have to decline to make any broadcast on that occasion, that were I to do so my own motives and the motives of the party would most certainly be mistaken. I asked that as some announcement had been made in the press to the effect that I would be broadcasting on that evening, a correction be made. I gave as my reasons not merely the possible misconstruction that might be placed on a broadcast at that time, but also my feeling that with the war at the stage at which it is at the present, I was the last one who would wish to be responsible in
any way for possible further political controversy at this time. Moreover I pointed out that there was likely to be a provincial election; in fact, a provincial election in the province of Quebec had been mentioned. It was some days ago that I spoke of this matter. Since then it has been decided to hold provincial elections in both Alberta and New Brunswick. It is natural that some persons should have minds akin to that of the hon. member who has asked this question. I pointed out such persons would assume of course that there must be something sinister and ulterior about the proposed recognition of the occasion in the manner suggested.
I have noticed in this morning's paper the following statement which I think puts the matter in its true light. I shall quote it as I believe it has been sent to the press generally throughout Canada:
A speech Prime Minister Mackenzie King is scheduled to deliver August 7 at a dinner marking the 25th anniversary of his leadership of the Liberal party will not be broadcast, it was announced last night.
The committee in charge of arrangements for the dinner said in a statement that an earlier announcement that the speech would be broadcast over the national network of the C.B.C. was made before consultation with the Prime Minister.
The statement added that Mr. King felt that any broadcast which might be made "would almost certainly be construed as having a political motive and as such might give rise to political controversy." This, Mr. King is most anxious to avoid . . . particularly at this stage of the war and at a time when elections are being held in three of the provinces of Canada.
(Elections will be held in Quebec and Alberta August 8 and in New Brunswick August 28.)
I hope that what I have said and what appears in the press will be sufficient to make perfectly clear that neither the committee in charge of this complimentary dinner nor I myself have any desire to make political capital out of this recognition by my fellow members in parliament of the 25th anniversary of my election as leader of the Liberal party of Canada.


Mr. CRERAR:: Perhaps I may be given the opportunity to add a word which the Prime Minister himself could not say because he did not know anything about it. The arrangements for the complimentary dinner for the Prime Minister were taken in hand over eight months ago. The Prime Minister knew nothing whatever about it, but from the beginning it was contemplated that it would be a proper occasion on which he might make a speech to the country over the radio. These assumptions and inferences, that this is something that has been arranged to influence the present political situation, are wholly without foundation whatever.
Questions as Orders jor Returns


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to add this word. I saw in one of the papers of this city a statement to the effect that on that occasion I was to be made a certain presentation. May I say that I had no knowledge that the presentation there referred to was being considered in relation to myself. I knew of course that some steps had been taken to have certain things done but as to any presentation to myself of the character which was mentioned in that paper I had no knowl-' edge whatever. When I saw the announcement I immediately recognized what I thought was a mischievous intent behind it and I wrote at once to members of the committee and said that I hoped no presentation of the character mentioned would be made to me on that occasion. I expressed the hope they would not feel that I was not fully appreciative of the compliment that was being paid to me and of the recognition which my party was seeking to give the 25th anniversary of my leadership, but that I would feel much happier if that particular feature of the occasion might be omitted.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any plans been made or any funds appropriated by any department of the government for the building of medical schools or colleges in the post-war period?
2.	If so, what amounts have been proposed for such an expenditure within each province?
3.	If such plans have been made do they provide for any increase in the number of medical students? If so, to what extent in each province?


MOTOR LAUNCHES-PROTECTION OF TRAVELLING PUBLIC
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What steps, df any, have been taken to prohibit the sale of gasoline for motor launches that carry passengers for hire or otherwise, which have not been licensed and have not been inspected by any federal authority as to navigation safety?
2.	Who is in charge of the enforcement of navigation or other federal laws herein to protect the public travelling in this form of transport?
3.	Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply any control over small motor craft, and what has been done to regulate such craft?
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE soldiers' cratuities and soldiers' insurance



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition)1: I have two questions to direct to

the Prime Minister. I would ask him whether the government proposes to introduce at this session a bill with respect to soldiers' gratuities or mustering-out pay, and secondly whether there is any truth in the rumours that there is to be a bill this session covering soldiers' insurance.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give my hon. friend a definite reply to the two questions asked as both matters at the present time are still under consideration.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. The newspapers of Saturday last carried a dispatch from American news sources which indicated that the Japanese government had renewed its threats to execute any allied airmen caught landing in Japan. If substantiated, this latest evidence of callous disregard for international conventions would seem to call for a strong protest from the governments of the united nations. I would be glad, therefore, to have the Prime Minister's comments on the situation; and perhaps he will indicate what steps Canada may take.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply to my hon. friend that the press report to which he has referred has still to be verified, but I would1 agree entirely with him not only as to the desirability but the necessity of the strongest protest from the governments of the united nations being made should there be any grounds for believing that these reports are correct.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. This morning I have received two telegrams from Toronto to say that a woman and her five children are to be evicted from their home in that city on the morning of the seventeenth. She is the wife of a service man who has been serving overseas for four years. Does the government propose to take any action to prevent such disgraceful things happening again?

Dominion Elections
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that I heard over the radio this morning a reference to the matter which she states at the present moment has been referred to her by telegram. My intention was to have the representations considered by the cabinet at its first meeting, but I now have reason to believe that the eviction will not take place. At any rate at its first meeting the government will consider what was stated this morning.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to bill No. 135, to provide regulations enabling Canadian war service electors to exercise their franchise, and Canadian prisoners of war to vote by proxy, at any general election held during the present war, also to provide amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, consequential to such regulations, or made necessary by the advent of the said war.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the other house has returned this bill with two amendments. I shall not at this stage deal with them at any length but might explain them briefly.
The first amendment is to section 5, by adding the words, "at the time of the passing of this act". The intention and effect of that is that in the event of any provincial legislature deciding that it should disqualify electors by reason of racial origin between the time of the passing of this act and the next election, this amendment will not prevent the affected parties mentioned in such measure from voting.
The next amendment is to section 11. That section deals with those clauses of the bill that will apply only to an election held within the present war and within a period of six months thereafter. I think from the wording of section 5 it might be argued, in fact it is made clear that it could apply only at the time this country is at war, because it states specifically that any disqualifications are those of a country which is at war with Canada. Members of this house, especially legal members, will agree that a statute always speaks in the present tense, but notwithstanding that, the endeavour has been made to make it clearer. I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to concurrence in the amendment. It might be argued that it makes assurance doubly sure and there could be no exception taken to that. Consequently I am prepared to move concurrence in the amendment. But
I also wish to move another amendment consequential to the senate amendment, and that is:
That the following words be added to the words "at the time of the passing of this act": "namely, July 1, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war resided in a province in which on those dates."
The effect of that is simply this. There has been some criticism of the disqualification of certain members of the Japanese race even though we are in the midst of a bitter and grim war, and the result of this amendment will be that no one who has enjoyed the right to vote will be disqualified. In other words, the right of the Japanese race to vote will be unimpaired in so far as they previously enjoyed that right. I believe this will meet the situation. I do not think, no matter how broadminded we may be, that at a time of war we should consider extending the franchise to those of an enemy race, and any other provision in the act will unquestionably have that effect. This leaves the right of those of the Japanese race who had the right to vote unimpaired, untrammelled, and uninterfered with. I believe that will meet with general approval in all sections of the house, and I consequently move that the senate amendment be concurred in as well as the motion I have proposed.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I would ask the minister what the rights were previously so far as the Japanese are concerned. Were they in any degree impaired except in one province?


Mr. McLARTY:: I am not sure that I get the exact significance of the hon. member's question. British Columbia is the only province in which any person is barred on account of his being a member of the Japanese race.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that in other provinces there has been no barring and there will be no change?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps it might be well if I were to read the amendments and the effect of them as I have them here:
That the amendment made by the senate to section 5 of Bill No. 135 be agreed to with the following consequential amendment:
That the following words be added to the words "at the time of the passing of this act": "namely, July 1, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates"; and that as a consequence, for greater clarity, paragraph (n) of the said section be made to read as follows:
"Every person residing in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person, at the time of the passing of this act, namely, July 1, 1938, and
Dominion Elections

on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates a person of his racial origin was disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918 or in any subsequent war in which Canada may be engaged."	*
That the senate amendment to section 11 be agreed to.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: It is unfortunate at this stage of the session that we are obliged to take part in a debate on this measure. I am speaking as a member of the committee that assisted in drafting the war service voters regulations. I had hoped that the amendment the government would propose would not make it necessary for members of this group to precipitate a debate on this bill. Unfortunately I cannot agree that the amendment proposed by the Secretary of State consequent upon the amendment made by the senate to section 5 * of this bill meets the situation as I understand it.
Perhaps it is just as well to have a brief review of matters leading up to the passage of this particular bill. I wish to make it quite clear that as a member of the elections committee who helped to draft-


Thomas Vien: Order. I understand that the hon. member is proposing to give a history of what has happened prior to this.


Clarence Gillis: No.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that we have before us amendments made by the senate and a motion proposed by the Secretary of State. I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the terms of these amendments as we have them.


Clarence Gillis: I had no intention of doing that, Mr. Speaker. I merely wished to review the matter before the house because I think it requires clarification both here and in the country so far as the amendment now under discussion relates to clause 5 of the bill. What I wish to make clear as a member of the committee who drafted the war service voters regulations is that we had nothing to do with the drafting of the amendment that is now before the house.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I made that clear in the debate in committee of the whole.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. The committee on dominion elections presented their report in the house on April 28, but that report had simply to do with war service voters regulations. When the Secretary of State introduced his bill he informed the house in a

brief statement that the committee on war service voters regulations were unanimous in their approval, which was quite correct. Most of the members who served on the committee drafting war service voters regulations had no knowledge of the matter now before the house.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I made that quite clear.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. Therefore, when the Secretary of State introduced the resolution in the house on June 8 there was no bill. Second reading was given to the bill on June 9. There was still no bill in the hands of the members of this house when it was given second reading. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked whether it had been printed or not. The reason I mention this is that every member of this house is desirous of correcting a mistake that was made at that time. At the time I spoke on the bill I had not seen it. I came to the house at a moment's notice. The matter was under discussion. I thought the bill merely had to do with the matters that the committee on war service voters regulations had passed on; and without any reservation I gave my support to the bill. After getting a chance to sit down and go over the bill I was surprised to see that this addition had been made. What I am concerned with is something that should not have been done in this bill, namely, to include amendments to the elections act which greatly change the exercise of the franchise in a federal election.
I think it was the wrong place to make the amendment. It should not be pinned to the war service voters regulations. As one member of the committee who studied that question, I merely wish to make it clear that had we had knowledge of that proposal and if there had been an opportunity to discuss it it certainly would not have received my support in any way, shape or form.
The amendment made by the senate does not, in my opinion, cover the objection, and the amendment now made by the Secretary of State does not clarify it to my satisfaction. What I am concerned about is that in the exercise of the franchise in Canada we are still practising racial discrimination, a? the bill now stands. While we know that the war with Japan is a serious matter and that many atrocities have been committed by the people of that country, there is no reason why we should try to duplicate the performances of that country. Canada is a country that is made up largely of minority groups. From day to day we read of the atrocities committed by Germany against our prisoners, people who are helpless to defend themselves. No one

Dominion Elections
has ever suggested that we should interfere with the exercise of the franchise by German residents of this country.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member permit one question?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is he urging the extension of the franchise to the Japanese at the present time-that the franchise be widely extended?


Clarence Gillis: What we are urging at this time is that while British Columbia has seen fit to deny the exercise of the franchise to persons of Japanese origin, this House of Commons should not extend that racial discrimination to the rest of Canada through the medium of an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment meets the very point my hon. friend has raised.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In ihe amendment we are not denying the franchise in any way.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The prohibition is being extended throughout Canada.


Clarence Gillis: It certainly has not been made clear that we are not. We received this amendment only a few moments ago. The wording of the amendment now before the house is as follows:
Every person residing in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person, at the time of the passing of this act: namely, July 1, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates a person of his racial origin was disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918, or in any subsequent war in which Canada may be engaged.
That is a pretty ambiguous amendment.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, it is quite clear. If he resided in a province until the date of the declaration of the war then no other province is affected; no one residing in any other province is affected.


Clarence Gillis: This is the way I understand the amendment. No person of Japanese racial origin who resided in British Columbia on the date mentioned in this amendment and has since moved to another province in Canada may vote. He is deprived of the franchise in that province.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not on the date mentioned; on the declaration of war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He never had it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I hesitate to interrupt; I will not do it again. You cannot take away from a person something he did not have. You are not depriving him of any right that he had because he never had the right. To keep the record straight the date is July 1, 1938, which is the date of the passing of the general elections act; but the effective date is the date of the declaration of war with the Japanese empire.


Clarence Gillis: You are taking something away from him. It is true he did not have the vote in British Columbia, but if he moved to Ontario or Quebec, where that kind of law is not in effect, he would have the right, if it were not for this particular bill, to exercise his franchise in a dominion election.


Norman Alexander McLarty: He has the right if he moved before the war.


Clarence Gillis: That is the change. Most of these people have moved since the outbreak of the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May we understand clearly what my hon. friend is asking? Is he asking that Japanese who had no right to vote in a federal election prior to the war shall now be given the right to vote if they happen to be in some part of Canada other than British Columbia? That is the point. Does he want that? If that is what he wishes, let him state it. Let him explain what he means. Is he asking for the conferring of the right to vote on a large number of Japanese who would not have that right had they not been moved for reasons connected with the war and for the security of Canada during the war?


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what I am
asking, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to state my opinions on the matter, very briefly. I believe that any person who was permitted to enter this country and become a citizen of it should have the full rights of citizenship. That is my opinion, and that is particularly so in regard to those born in Canada, who are Canadians because of that fact.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: If the hon. member will permit a question, is that the hon. member's personal opinion, or is it the official opinion of the party?


Clarence Gillis: That is official, from the
party.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Does that apply to
British Columbia, too?


Clarence Gillis: I hope you will note these
interruptions, Mr. Speaker. I am not speaking for British Columbia; I am speaking for the members of this group.
Dominion Elections



* COMMONS

Thomas Vien: , If the hon. member does not so wish, he may not be interrupted.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you. I am not concerned about the Japanese only; I am concerned about the people of every racial origin in this country.	,


Norman Alexander McLarty: The Japanese are the only ones involved.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; you are practising racial discrimination so far as this particular group is concerned. There is something else I want to make clear. I remember vividly the fight that was put up thirty-five or forty years ago when the Japanese were brought into this country; certain sections of Canada did their best to keep them out. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company and other employers in this country were concerned with bringing them in so that they might obtain cheap labour to serve their purposes.


Mr. REID:: Not the Japanese; the Chinese.


Mr. STIRLING:: That has been denied
time and again.


Clarence Gillis: It would not be very hard
to dig back into the records and prove that statement. The present attitude is a surprise to me in view of what I find in Hansard, in booklets and pamphlets issued by the Liberal party, and in official statements by the Conservative party. These statements are very liberal, and I think they indicate the policy that must be followed if we are to make progress in the future. This country has to be populated. We have no Japanese in Nova Scotia-


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; that is the
reason.


Clarence Gillis: If we think we, eleven and a half million people on this half of the continent of North America, can set ourselves up as a super race and bring in slaves to work for us, at the same time denying them the rights of citizenship, certainly that is not in accordance with statements made in this house by both the Liberal and Conservative parties. I am much concerned, Mr. Speaker, when those who are conducting the affairs of this nation can make a statement this year and twist it around next year, particularly when it has to do with basic principles, without any regard to what was said the year before. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is a British Columbia member. I should like to quote the opinion he expressed on a former occasion. I refer to page 4487 of Hansard for June 29, 1934, when

the Dominion Franchise Act was under discussion in relation to the Doukhobors. The minister had this to say:
If these people refuse to obey our laws they should be punished, but I think disfranchisement is the wrong form of punishment. It is. an invidious distinction. I hold no brief for these people as I think they deserved the *punishment which the attorney general and the government of the day in British Columbia meted out to them, but I think it is a bad precedent for this parliament to follow'.
The minister was very anxious at that time to protect the right of the franchise with respect to a minority group. Again, at page 4530 of Hansard for June 30, 1934, I find this discussion:
Mr. Bennett: ... If they are not willing to become citizens of Canada and openly defy the lawr, then they should not be permitted to vote as citizens.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	In view of what the
Prime Minister has just said, may I ask him this question:	Would not a better way to
proceed have been to enact in the franchise act that any person who defies the law' to the extent of refusing to be enumerated as a Canadian citizen shall not be qualified to vote?
Mr. Bennett:	That cannot be done.
The portion of the discussion with which I am. concerned follows:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Then innocent parties should not be discriminated against, or as Burke says, you cannot indict a nation; no more can you indict an entire race or all members of any religious sect.
I agree with that statement. In the last thirty years I have had some considerable experience with many minority groups in Canada, and I think I am safe in saying that most of such groups, and this includes the Japanese, came to this country as refugees from the order of society which has developed in those countries. Hon. members may say that is not so. Discuss the matter with them individually and personally. They are prepared to obey the laws of Canada. Many of them have taken out citizenship papers. Thousands were born in this country. To-day many of them: are fighting in the army of the United States. They are not in the Canadian army because they are not permitted to join it. During the last war I served with a unit which had as reinforcements part of a battalion of Japanese raised in British Columbia, and we considered them to be very competent soldiers. At least five Purple Hearts have 'been won by Japanese soldiers with the American armies fighting the legions of Mussolini in Italy.


Mr. NEILL:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was never a battalion of Japanese raised in British Columbia.

Dominion Elections


George Alexander Cruickshank: Only seventy-four Japanese enlisted in all Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No; over two hundred.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue with hon. members, but I remember distinctly getting reinforcements in October, 1916, which consisted of about 175 Japanese from British Columbia.	'


Mr. GIBSON:: Japan was our ally then.


Clarence Gillis: That is all right. Thousands of Japanese who are in Canada to-day came here at or about that, time, and they have been living here ever since, making their contribution. As I said before, when you start to interfere with the liberties of one section of the people of Canada the time is coming when it will apply to every section. It is really a matter of setting a precedent. My stand -is that if we permit a man to enter this country, give him the right to work and accept him as a citizen, we are under an obligation to go all the way with him. If we keep these people segregated in their own groups, refuse them the right of citizenship and so on, how can we expect to make citizens of them? If we are not going to make citizens of them certainly we should not have them in the country. Either they should be here on the basis of full citizenship or they should not be here at all.
I have no doubt it was in the rush of business that this thing got through the house. I should like to see section 5 deleted completely, but I know that cannot be done at this point. The only thing we can do is attempt to correct the senate amendment in the best way possible to meet the situation. In that connection I am going to move a subamendment, seconded by Mr. Knowles:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"the motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' Substituted therefor, -and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefore: 'subsequent to the next general election'."
I have no intention of going into a long debate in the matter. I merely wish to make it clear that, we are opposed to racial discrimination in any way, shape or form as applied to any section of Canada where minority groups are accepted as citizens. This subamendment merely means that section 5 of the present bill would remain inoperative in the next general election. The matter would remain as
it is, or as it was prior to the passing of this Section of the bill. By the time this house convenes again there may be a new parliament. But if it is not a new parliament, the members of the house have the right and privilege of going into the elections act and tightening the act as they may wish, or changing it completely. What I wish to make clear is that we are not satisfied with it, and we want to try to undo any harm that was done in the rush of putting this bill through the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a point of order, from what my hon. friend has said at the very conclusion of his remarks it would seem that his amendment is intended to leave matters as they were prior to the carrying of section 5. That, as I understand it, is the intention of my hon. friend's amendment. If that is so, its effect is the same thing as that of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, being to all intents and purposes the same amendment in its effect, it could not be considered by the house.
In what I am saying I have referred to what I understood the hon. member to have said about his amendment. I am not referring to anything he may have had to say with regard to the general question of the right of all persons to vote. That is another matter.


Thomas Vien: I shall read the subamendment-. It is as follows:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"the motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' substituted therefor, and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefor:	'subsequent to the next general election'."
This would mean that the following words be added: "At a time subsequent to the next general election". That is the effect of the subamendment.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, would you read section 5 as amended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, let us have that.


Thomas Vien: Section 5, as proposed, would be as follows:
Every person residing in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person, -at the time of the passing of this act, namely July I, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates a person of his racial origin was disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of
Dominion Elections

that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-18 or in any subsequent war in which Canada may be engaged.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That extends the
franchise.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, would you read the amendment again?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, let us have it again.


Thomas Vien: The amendment by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From what?-from the amendment?


Thomas Vien: I would suppose that would mean from the section of the bill. It states:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"The motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' substituted therefor, and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefor: 'subsequent to the next general election'."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The intention of that amendment is therefore obvious. The disqualification does not refer to a disqualification previously existing from July 1, 1938, or at the outbreak of war. The disqualification would refer to a time after the holding of the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is destructive, completely, of the principle now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad to have that admission. This is a direct negative, and therefore I submit it is not in order.


Thomas Vien: I am not inclined to agree that the hon. member intends a direct negative. I take it that it would read so that all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State would be deleted, and it would substitute therefor "at a time subsequent to the next general election."


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I rise to another point of order, if you have decided the first one. I would refer to citation 589 in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms,
CMr. Speaker.]
second edition. We are now dealing with an amendment to a vote for concurrence, which is rather an unusual thing. It is laid down in this citation that-
No amendment can be proposed to the senate's amendment save an amendment strictly relevant thereto; nor can an amendment be moved to the bill, unless the amendment foe relevant to or consequent upon either the acceptance or the rejection of a senate amendment.
I suggest that this proposed amendment is not relevant to the amendments, nor is it consequent upon them. The word "consequent" means following upon. Taken literally, "consequent" would mean that if a motion were proposed to strike out section 4, and in the event of that section being stricken out it became necessary to renumber the following sections,. an amendment to renumber would be " consequent." It would be a trivial correction consequent upon having accepted another amendment. We might then have to renumber certain sections. The proposal of the hon. member for Cape Breton South is not consequent, nor is it particularly relevant. It might be relevant, but it certainly is not consequent. Then, let us look at the bill. Hon. members know that explanations are written on the right hand pages in the bill. That is the law. The explanation appearing opposite this section reads:
This provides a disqualification from voting at a dominion election of persons of the Japanese race.
Those are the words which explain what section 5 means. The speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South indicates that he wishes that the Japanese shall vote. Therefore it cannot in any sense be held to be consequent. I suggest therefore that it is not consequent, that it is not relevant, and that it is out of order.


Thomas Vien: The amendment which I have read already, and the amendment to the amendment, would read as follows:
Every .person residing in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada at .a time subsequent to the next general election-
That is the amendment. Then the amendment moved by the hon. member deletes all the words following and its result would be that the section would then convey no meaning. It would not mean that any person of that racial origin would have the right to vote, because it deletes the following words:

and on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates a person of his racial origin was disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province,

Dominion Elections
and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-18 or in any subsequent war in which Canada was engaged.
Those words are struck out and therefore the amendment as proposed conveys nothing. It makes no provision for voting, and therefore it is not in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker,
that you have ruled the amendment out of order?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking then to the
motion of the Secretary of State for the adoption of the senate amendment as amended by the Secretary of State, I should like to make a few comments. It seems to me that what is at stake here to-day is not so much the rights of certain Japanese Canadians who have moved from British Columbia to other parts of Canada, as the basic concept of democracy and our integrity as a nation so far as our belief in the franchise is concerned I feel I should take a moment or two to place on the record some quotations relevant to this question of disfranchising a group of people by race.
I hold in my hand a bound volume of political pamphlets which I obtained from the library and which includes a musty document entitled, "The Liberal Point of View. Current Comment on the Proceedings of the Parliamentary Session of 1920." I should like to read from that document, as follows:
The great principle underlying the present franchise law is that all men and women shall vote-that the basis of the franchise shall be humanity. Still there are members and members of parliament who cling to the notion that they are dispensing a sort of charity when they allow- men and women to vote-that they are political almsgivers-that they have the right to pick and choose and say who is to vote and who is not to vote.
I will skip a sentence or two which had to do with the political situation existing at the time, then I quote further:
The franchise law


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend had better read the part he is omitting, so that we shall have the full text


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Prime Minister is right. The part I intended to omit reads:
The pretension is all the more ridiculous when it is remembered that the present government and the members of parliament upon whose support it relies are mere usurpers, who in a fair and democratic election would be shorn of their power by the voice of the people.
I was sparing the right hon. gentleman that sentence. I continue:
The franchise law contains a lot of pedantic rubbish about "aliens", which the Liberals-
My whole point in speaking to-day is that many liberals-I use the small "1"-are with us on this. I continue:

and other progressive members of the house haw tried to clear away. The House of Commons, not as a despotic ruler, but as a trustee for the people, may have a right to associate good citizenship with the franchise. Good citizenship is not a matter of race or birth. It is a matter of conduct. It is a matter of the relationship of a man towards his family and his neighbours and the community in which he lives. Any one of the constituencies which elect representatives to parliament is probably a better judge of these qualifications than parliament itself. The duty of fixing the qualifications is assigned to parliament in a general way. But parliament is only a referee and should do its duty modestly, not in an arrogant fashion.
The man of foreign or alien birth or descent is in a peculidr position. He came to us with traditions that are European rather than Canadian. He came upon our invitation. We ought not to have invited him unless we expected to make him a good citizen of Canada, for we do not want men and women in Canada who, as Mr. Pardee says, are in no man's land.
There is a great deal of talk of Canadianizing the foreigner and make him a good citizen. All right if we are sincere, and if we carry our ideas to their logical conclusion. If we desire to educate the foreigner or the alien, we must assume toward him an attitude of sympathy and confidence, not of suspicion. We should invite him to our councils. We should tell him that the institutions of our country, our legislative bodies and courts are his institutions too, that they are intended to protect him and promote his interests and that we want him to take his part in framing and maintaining them.
It is an extremely foolish notion that by depriving a man of alien birth or descent, of the vote, we can keep him out of mischief. If there were a really vicious malignant enemy of Canada in our midst, he would not care whether he had a vote or not. He would take no pride in citizenship. He would not desire to have a part in working the institutions of the countries. He would prefer to see those institutions destroyed. The man or woman who is really hurt by defranchisement is the man or woman who is friendly to Canada, who wants to be a citizen, who desires to have a part in working the institutions of Canada. Deprive such a man or woman of the franchise and you may convert a friend into an enemy, or at least quench the flame of friendship and patriotism and create a class of man and woman who will be indifferent to Canadianism. Let us take the opposite course. Let us kindle the flames of Canadianism and patriotism by a policy of friendship and confidence toward men of every race and creed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend made some reference to myself. Was he intimating that I had written that particular document?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not believe that I associated the Prime Minister's name particularly with the authorship of this document.

Dominion Elections


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend said that he was sparing my feelings for some reason. It is a very good document.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was referring to the sentence I had left out, to the effect that the government had not the confidence of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the document my hon. friend is reading from?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is its full title:
The Liberal Point of View.
Current Comment on the Proceedings of the Parliamentary Session of 1920.
National Liberal Committee, 115 Sparks Street, Ottawa.
Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., Liberal Leader.
Andrew Haydon, National Organizer and General Secretary.
John Lewis, Editor of Liberal Publications.
Publication No. 4-Issued June 15.
I suggest that my right hon. friend look it over himself, because there is a lot of good stuff in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a document written by the late Senator John Lewis, and I think it is an excellent document.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would remind the Prime Minister that in 1917, when somewhat similar circumstances prevailed before the house, his former leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, moved the following motion on September 10 of that year:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that the abridgement by this parliament of the electoral franchise now enjoyed in any province of the dominion by any class of His Majesty's subjects would be contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Had we caught this clause on the second reading of the bill nothing would have been more proper at that time than to move the amendment moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917 and in exactly those words. Unfortunately with the way things happened on June 9 it is now necessary for parliament to try to fix this up in the best way possible. My hon. friends who know me sometimes criticize me because I watch things in too great detail. I confess that I do it, but I missed that one completely. Why? Because we were given assurances inside and outside of the house that what we had before us in bill No. 135 was the enactment of the work that had been done by the special committee on which my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) sat.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I must correct the hon. member in that. In my remarks before the committee of the whole I made it perfectly

clear that the part which the committee had dealt with, and the only part, was schedule 1 of the bill; that the committee had made a recommendation in regard to schedule 2 but had not considered it clause by clause, and no reference of it to the committee had been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the
trouble. No reference was made to it. What happened was this. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) on June 8 asked this question-


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is a misconstruction to say that no reference was made. It was made quite clear that no reference was made to the committee of the wording of the bill itself. I do not mean that no reference was made to the bill, but no reference was made to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At no time was any suggestion made that there was such a clause in this bill. I doubt if any private member of the house knew that that clause was in there. We took these assurances because we were not of a suspicious frame of mind. We should have been. People outside the house who now read Hansard and see what happened think that we were asleep. They read Hansard and see that this bill was brought down with this clause in it and that we passed it without saying a word about it.
I go back to the resolution which was introduced by the Secretary of State preceding the introduction of the bill relating to the war service voters, and it reads-now I quote- "to provide amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, consequential to such regulations." Consequently when the bill came before us from the committee, we did not read it in detail because we thought that the only things to be found in it were things consequential to the regulations to provide for the taking of the soldiers' vote. But subsequently the Toronto Saturday Niyht, the Winnipeg Free Press and other papers began to look through the bill and drew this clause to our attention and to the attention of other members of the house and the country generally.
I was going on to point out when I was interrupted that the hon. member for Vancouver South on June 8 asked this question in the house at page 3643 of Hansard:
Will the minister tell us wh ther or not the recommendations have been accepted in full and, if not in full, in what way they have been varied?
Mr. McLarty: I wonder if th" hon. member is referring to the specific regulations adopted by the special committee dealing with war service electors. If he is, they have been

Dominion Elections
adopted in full, as have the provisions which were recommended by the special committee in connection with granting votes by proxy to prisoners of war and those interned in neutral countries. I wonder if that answers the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Green: Apparently the regulations have been adopted in full?
Mr. McLarty: That is correct.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it is correct, but look how we were put off the track by it. Then the hon. member for Vancouver South went on to ask this question:
Mr. Green: Without any variation?
Mr. McLarty: There might be the change of a word, but nothing material.
When the Secretary of State stated that there was nothing but the change of a word, nothing material, so far as the regulations are concerned, we thought that that covered the whole story. But instead of that here we have this bill with this clause in it which I submit is a violation of the basic traditions of Liberalism down across the years.


Mr. GREEN:: On a point of order, there were further questions which I asked of the Secretary of State, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will read them he will see that they put a different construction upon the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am willing to take the time to read them, but you will find nothing there that makes reference to any clause in the bill having anything to do with other than amendments to the soldier vote regulations and consequential amendments. Then we find that there is something that was not consequential at all, and that makes me suggest that the resolution itself was not properly worded in the first instance.


Thomas Reid: Had not the members of the
house the bill before them at the time of the second reading?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was just coming to
that. On April 26 the report of the committee was tabled. We in our group had studied that report. We held two or three special caucuses upon it, and so we knew just what was in that report. We were satisfied with it. Now to come back to the question which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked, the resolution was passed and the bill introduced and given its first reading on June 8. On that occasion the leader of the opposition asked the Secretary of State if the bill had been printed, and the Secretary of State replied in the affirmative. The next morning several of us tried to get copies of the bill but were unable to do so. Later that day, in
100-309J
the afternoon at three o'clock, the leader of the opposition. rose on the orders of the day and called the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that he had been told that the bill had been printed but that the members of his group were not able to get a copy of it. The Secretary of State replied that he thought he was stating the facts as he knew them when he made his reply the day before, but that he had found out since that although the bill had been printed it was not yet bound or made available to hon. members. So that we still did not have the bill on June 9. The bill was placed on our desks at the actual moment that second reading was called on the night of June 9. I was here and I have a vivid recollection of it. I had not read the bill and I doubt if any members of the house had read it. We had for six weeks studied the details of the soldiers' vote regulations, which we were assured was all that
the bill dealt with, 'and so long as we.were
satisfied with the regulations we felt that we were doing our full duty.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he will find at page 3643 of Hansard that it was made amply clear that the committee had dealt only with schedule A, and not with schedule B, and there was no suggestion that the bill was at any time before the special committee. I therefore feel that my hon. friend's suggestion that in some way the thing was hidden from the house is not an honest one or a fair one, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not said that the bill was before the committee. I have said that it was not before anybody.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The bill was in the hands of the hon. member both at the time of the second reading and in committee of the whole. It was right there in the form in which it is at present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have often had occasion to object in the house when bills were called for second reading and we did not have a copy of the bill in advance, but I felt that I was making a nuisance of myself always to ask to have these bills before us.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There was no suggestion of urgency on the part of the sponsor of the bill. It was not suggested that there was any hurry or any urgency to get the bill through. It was there just the same as any other bill.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member for Comox-Alibemi (Mr. Neill) had the bill before him, because he said it contained one and one-half pages and then the schedules. That was on the second reading of the bill.
Dominion Elections


Norman Alexander McLarty: Had the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read: the explanatory note on section 5 of the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We only got the bill when the second reading was called. We did1 not have it the morning before, as we should have, and we were not suspicious. We did not have any reason to go into the details of the bill because we had gone into the details of the lengthy schedules attached to it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Explanatory note to section 5, consisting of two lines, was perfectly clear. It reads:
This provides a disqualification from voting at a dominion election of persons of the Japanese race.
There was no suggestion of trying to influence the house improperly. The explanatory note was there and it would not take more than a few seconds to read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am satisfied that I am not the only member of the house who did not see it in the rush and feels this way about it. There are a good many members with good liberal blood in their veins who, if they had noticed this clause, would have had something to say about it on this occasion. As soon a9 the bill had been given its third reading it was given publicity and there has been a good deal said about it throughout the country. I have already referred to some of the publications, such as Toronto Saturday Night and the Winnipeg Free Press, which have done particularly good work on it. The Free Press has dug up not only the quotations I have referred to but others back in Hansard across the years. The Free Press has this interesting statement to make:
It is certainly to be hoped that British Columbians who call themselves Liberals will not sink to this apostasy of Liberal principles, and it will be a sorry day if the Liberal party has to learn its Liberalism from the socialists.
That comes from an editorial in the Free Press, the title of which is "The C.C.F. Shows Courage", and everyone knows that the Free Press does not go out of its way to hand compliments to the C.C.F. In this matter, however, they have carried on a consistent fight to have this business changed before parliament rises.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do you always believe what the Winnipeg Free Press says?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. More often than not it is wrong, but when it is right I do not mind saying so. Even the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) is right on occasion, and when he is I do not hesitate to say so. But not only are newspapers and

periodicals working on the matter. Organizations covering a wide range of public thought have been interesting themselves in this question. In this instance I have received communications from boards of trade and trade unions, and frequently when you get communications from these bodies they are on opposite sides of the fence. But this time they are on the same side. I have had communications from a number of church organizations. The United Church of Canada has been particularly active in the matter, and we have seen activity on the part of the National Inter-church Advisory Committee on the Resettlement of Japanese Canadians. This is headed by five of the largest Christian communions-the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto, the United Church of Canada, Church of England social service, the Baptist convention of Ontario and Quebec, and the Presbyterian Church in Canada. All these people have written about this matter and have made representations to members of parliament and senators, and they feel exactly as we do about it, that what is really at stake is not what is happening to. a few individual Canadians of Japanese origin. What we are concerned about is maintaining in Canada, sound and undisturbed, the principle that the franchise is based upon humanity and that there should be no racial discrimination so far as the franchise is concerned. Documents that I have read from years gone by state the Liberal position. The Prime Minister has stated that position even as recently as the outbreak of this war, for during the war session of September, 1939, he expressed the hope that there would be no racial intolerance or bigotry during the period of the war, and he welcomed support along that line from the then leader of the opposition, the late Doctor Manion. The Prime Minister mentioned the fact that he himself had been born in a town which was known at that time as Berlin, Ontario; he referred to his own education in Germany, and he expressed the hope that we would maintain that genius of our Canadian democracy which is the ability to rise above any racial discrimination whatsoever.
Something has gone awry, and what we have before us now is not in keeping with the policy of the Liberal party. It is not in keeping with its traditions down through the years. I think a definite attempt should be made to correct this error, not simply for the sake of a few Canadians of Japanese origin but for own own sake, so that we may not descend to racial discrimination of any kind but keep ourselves a nation in which the highest principle is the principle of humanity.

Dominion Elections


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members should bear in mind the exact nature of the amendment and the side of the house from which it has been proposed. The amendment is intended to remove any possibility of racial discrimination with respect to the franchise and equally any possibility of racial favouritism. The amendment also, as I have said, has been moved by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) who is a member of the government, and has made the motion he has on behalf of the government.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Knowles) might well have made the speech he has had the government been indifferent in this matter, and he were seeking to arouse its members to a remembrance of their past assertions and of their duties and obligations. But everything that he has said about the importance of not countenancing racial discrimination with regard to the franchise merely supports what this amendment is intended to effect.
Let me make it perfectly clear that, if this amendment carries, the position so far as this general election is concerned, in relation to Japanese, will be in practical terms what it would have been if clause 5 had never found a place in the bill. It leaves the matter of the right of voting on the part of the Japanese just where it would have been but for changes in the place of residence of some of them which have taken place as a consequence of the war.
I must take my share of credit or blame along with all my colleagues for anything that may have been done from this side of the house by way of omission or commission, to which exception may be taken. I therefore wish to say at once, what I believe was in the mind of the administration in having the amendment to the elections act proposed in the words it was by the insertion of section 5. It was to prevent the possibility of racial favouritism in the exercise of the franchise and of racial favouritism shown to members of the race whose country to-day is at war with our own.
Under clause 5 the right of all Japanese, even those not previously resident in British Columbia, would have been taken away, because that right is denied to Japanese resident in British Columbia. What would that mean? It would mean that the government was recognizing the franchise as existing in one particular province as being the one which should determine the franchise for the whole dominion. That is something that would not be entertained for a moment by
this house once the implication is apparent. Hon. members will ask, why was that not foreseen? The answer is very simple. The purpose of the bill as it went to the senate was to prevent Japanese who would not have had the right to vote had they remained in British Columbia from having that right in different parts of Canada simply because they had moved or had been moved from that province for reasons connected with the war. Let me make the position clear according to the facts. So far as the Japanese were concerned they had no right to exercise the franchise in British Columbia. Their citizenship was limited in that province; and for as long as I can remember where a province has had a franchise -that restricted for racial reasons the right of certain classes to vote in that province the dominion has with respect to federal elections taken cognizance of that fact as regards that province. But it has never held that what any province might do in the matter of the franchise in its own province should be made to govern the franchise as it would be exercised in other provinces of Canada.
What happened after Pearl Harbor? For purposes of security to the nation, particularly for purposes of security to British Columbia, this government arranged the transfer from British Columbia of large numbers of Japanese. It transferred these Japanese to different provinces. It did that, as I have said, as a measure of security. It was never intended by the government of Canada at the time that that step was taken that the Japanese who were being thus transferred would be given a right in a general election which they would not have had had they remained in British Columbia, or would give them a right which the Japanese remaining in British Columbia would not have in this election. The purpose of the bill was to remove any possibility of favouring that large number, but what was the effect of it? There was an effect which was not apparent to anyone at the time, or it would have been pointed out at once. It had the effect of taking away from the Japanese who were in provinces other than British Columbia a right which they would have had to vote as citizens of Canada in those provinces, and as such was in the nature of racial discrimination. By this amendment we are seeking to make it clear that such was never the intention of the government. It was never the intention to exercise racial discrimination. The intention was simply to prevent certain Japanese from being favoured in the matter of the exercise of their franchise in a manner which they would not have been but for the war. What

Dominion Elections
are the facts? Take the numbers that are concerned. The figures that I have are approximate, but prior to Pearl Harbor the 1941 census gives the number of Japanese who were outside of British Columbia as a thousand. Of that thousand less than 650 were twenty years of age or over. A large number of those were not naturalized; consequently the voting strength of the entire Japanese people outside British Columbia was negligible. In addition they were scattered throughout the dominion and for that reason their vote, if exercised, would not have been likely to affect one way or the other the result in any constituency.
This was the position that had to be dealt with. To prevent the thousands of Japanese who had moved or been moved out of British Columbia from voting at this election in other provinces some measure had to be taken to make it clear that they were not to have that right, and the bill as it was drafted was aimed at those particular Japanese. But, as I say, it overlooked the fact that in' the taking of that step there were a few in the other provinces who -were Canadian citizens who would have been disfranchised as a consequence. The best evidence that the government has held determinedly to this view that there shall be no racial discrimination as such in connection with the franchise is that at this moment we are proposing the amendment we are to the bill as it has come back to this house from the senate. I might mention one other matter. Had the large number of Japanese, those who had moved or been moved out of British Columbia, had the right to vote at an election where they would not have had that right had they remained in British Columbia I am pretty sure that had they sought to exercise it there might have been riots at some of the polls at the time of the election when Japanese presented themselves. It was exercising the part of wisdom to see that nothing of the kind should take place.
When the plebiscite bill was put through this house it contained a clause for the purpose of preventing the very possibility of riots arising because of the Japanese voting on the plebiscite. The clause was inserted in the bill and approved by this house and by the senate, by all parties in parliament, that they should not have the right to cast their votes in that plebiscite. It was done not for reasons of racial discrimination, it was done for purposes, if you like, of protection of the Japanese themselves. Instead of discriminating it is a means of saving them from possible injury that they might have suffered had they attempted to vote.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
What has been done with respect to this measure was to have a clause inserted in the bill similar to that which was in the plebiscite bill and for precisely the same reasons; but the point that I wish to make clear at the moment is that the effect of this amendment is to prevent thousands of Japanese who are now in the different provinces of Canada, but who had been residing in British Columbia at the time of the war from having any right in the matter of the franchise which they would not have had had they remained in British Columbia at this time. I think the house will agree that we should not discriminate on racial lines at any time, but equally we should be doubly careful, and particularly at a time of war, not to give to those of a race with whose country we are at war rights which they would not have except for the exigencies of war itself.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: In the light of all that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said about the government's determination to prevent the exercise of discrimination I think we should look at the clause we are amending. This bill must have had the approval of the cabinet before it was introduced into the house. It was introduced by a responsible member of the cabinet. As I understand it, the effect of the clause would have been to disfranchise at a federal election any group of people of alien race that had at the time of the election been disfranchised by any province. It did not refer to this particular war, but to any war in which Canada was engaged. Therefore it is quite obvious that it was the intent of the government, or certainly the intent of those who framed this bill, and the intent of those who sponsored this bill, that we should give over to the provinces the right to determine who should vote at a federal election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that I rose to make it perfectly clear what the intention was, and I made it perfectly clear that the intention was not to take away a right from any one who had the right but to see to it that rights were not given to persons who had not previously enjoyed them, particularly when they were of a race with whose country we are at war.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: Perhaps instead of using the word "intent" I should have said the effect of this clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is why
the amendment is being introduced, to remove that effect, which was due entirely to an oversight on the part of hon. members on all sides, as is quite apparent this morning.

Dominion Elections


Joseph William Noseworthy: Certainly there was a storm of protest across the country, and an amendment was adopted in the other house which brought this bill back to the House of Commons. I am doubtful as to just how much credit the country will give the Liberal government for the reintroduction of this measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not
looking for credit. We are looking for justice, that is all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That will remain to be seen. The amendment adopted by the senate would have the effect of disfranchising at a federal election only those who at the time of the passing of this act had been disfranchised by a provincial government, which in effect would mean the disfranchisement of all people of Japanese origin in Canada. The government has sought to patch up the evident mistake it made by inserting clause 5 in the bill in the first place, by easing the situation a little more and leaving the right to vote with those who were not resident in British Columbia before the war, the number of whom the Prime Minister indicated was very small. What he is doing now by the amendment introduced, and I think we must understand it, is this. Formerly a province had the right to determine who in that province would vote in a provincial or federal election. Now the government is making it possible for one province to determine not only who in that province shall vote in a federal election but who in all provinces may vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; we are
doing the very opposite.


Joseph William Noseworthy: We have not a copy of the amendment, but is it not true that the effect of the amendment is to disfranchise the Japanese who were residing in British Columbia, whether at the time of the election they were residing in British Columbia or in any other province?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, but it does not give the legislature the power to determine that now; the power must have been exercised six years ago. No fresh power is given.


Joseph William Noseworthy: But it does extend beyond the borders of British Columbia the provisions which that one province has made with regard to its electors. A number of statements have been made as to the circumstances under which the bill was introduced. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that there was an oversight on the part of some of the members of the government. The minister responsible has indicated that never was
desire for haste indicated by the government in connection with the passing of this bill, but on that occasion apparently a number of circumstances occurred which as far as I can remember have not occurred on any other occasion. To begin with, the bill was not printed and in the hands of hon. members until it was called for second reading. Then the assurance was given by the minister that schedule A followed the recommendations of the committee. It is true that the minister did not refer to the bill itself, and apparently no hon. member had the foresight to ask him if there was anything in the bill that had not come before the committee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It was read clause by clause.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Clause 1 was read; then, according to Hansard for June 9, clauses 2 to 11 were called together. As far as I remember this is the only instance since I have been in this house when a bill has not been called clause by clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, what nonsense !


Norman Alexander McLarty: My recollection definitely is that every clause was called specifically. They were not carried en bloc in that manner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend was in the house last week when the measure concerning national health and welfare was under discussion. Half a dozen clauses were called and put through without debate.


Mr. BRADETTE:: On a point -of order, Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the committee, and I say here and now that the clauses were called one by one and the marginal notes read.


Thomas Reid: And Hansard proves it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: According to page 3692 of Hansard section 1 was agreed to. The next item is "Sections 2 to 12 agreed to." Then a discussion ensued.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hansard may
record it in that manner, but the Deputy Speaker has just mentioned to my hon. friend that the marginal notes were called. Hansard does not put down everything that is called, but the word of the Deputy Speaker should be sufficient to answer the hon. gentleman.


Grote Stirling: In connection with that point of order I would direct attention to page 3696 of Hansard where I see, "Section S agreed to."


Thomas Reid: And the bill was before the house four days.
Dominion Elections


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not excusing myself, Mr. Speaker; I have to take my share of blame along with other hon. members of the house. I am satisfied, however, that if hon. members had been given the opportunity of reading that bill clause by clause objection would have been raised to clause 5.
Mr. BRjADETTE : Again I must raise a point of order. The hon. gentleman is casting a reflection upon the Chair. I was chairman of that committee and never, at any time, have I tried to railroad any bill or any clause through. I am in the judgment of the committee as to the bill in question, but I repeat that every clause was called by itself and the marginal notes read. If the committee had asked me to read the clauses in full I would have done so gladly.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Reference was made to page 3696 of Hansard, where it is said that section 5 was agreed to. May I call the attention of the house to the fact that the section 5 there has reference to the schedule and not to the bill itself.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The provisions of the bill and the schedule were gone over, section by section. It does refer to the schedule. But the whole bill was gone over in the ordinary and regular way. The suggestion is that in some manner-and I do not know how-the bill was treated in an extraordinary fashion. So far as I am aware-and as Mr. Deputy Speaker has made clear-it was treated in the regular manner of a bill passing the house. If hon. members did not see it, of course -that is not our fault.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Apparently the hon. member is not the only one who did not see it.


Thomas Vien: Did I understand the hon. member to say the bill was not read section by section? Does he not accept the wordl of Mr. Deputy Speaker that it was dealt with in that way?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Let him withdraw.


Thomas Vien: Did I understand the hon. member to say it was not read section by section?-


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Yes.


Thomas Vien: -and that the bill was not gone through in the regular way, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has intimated?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I was calling attention to the fact that Hansard reports that sections 2 to 12 were agreed to, en bloc.


Thomas Vien: I must point out that Hansard is only a record of the proceedings 
of the house, but it is not the official record. Mr. Deputy Speaker has called attention to a statement made by the hon. member, and has pointed out that the only inference which can be drawn from the hon. member's observations is that Mr. Deputy Speaker did not read the sections of the bill, when it was before the committee, and that in some way the bill was not properly before the committee. Does the hon. member wish to convey that meaning to the house?


Joseph William Noseworthy: No. My suggestion was that the bill received hurried consideration by members, including myself-


Thomas Vien: I would ask the hon.
member to withdraw any implication or inference that Mr. Deputy Speaker did not conduct the passage of the bill, when it was before the committee, in the ordinary fashion,, and the fashion in which he says it was conducted. I would ask the hon. member to make a withdrawal, and1 to make it clear, so that it may be recorded in Hansard, that there was no improper procedure on the part of Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I withdraw anything that may imply that the chairman of the committee was lax in his duty, or attempted to railroad anything through the house. I am putting the blame where I think it belongs- on myself, and on other members of the house.
I believe I can say that the government's amendment offered this morning is more generous than that proposed by the senate, and that both are more generous than the original section. Under those circumstances we shall have no choice but to support them, since Your Honour has ruled our subamendment out of order. But we still feel that the section is not sufficiently generous, and that there is still an element of discrimination on racial grounds, of which we believe this country does not approve.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I should like to make my position clear to the house and to the many people who -have given me responsibility in this matter, and who look to me as a defender of democracy.
In the first place -may I congratulate the government upon the amendment brought in. May I concur in many statements of regret which have been made with respect to the events which took place when the bill was first before the house. I too am one of those who failed to catch the significance of this section. The reason I think is clear, and is

Dominion Elections
the fault of no one. It will be observed that section 5 of the bill has the effect of adding subsection (n) to section 14(2) of the act. To be clear on what the amendment really involved, it was necessary to read section 14(2). True, one could have looked at the explanation, and gained from it the meaning of the amendment. It was perfectly plain to anyone who looked at and considered it. But everyone who knows about the hulk of material which passes through this house, and is familiar with legislation, can understand how a section of this kind might pass without its effect being fully realized.
The effect of the section as it went to the senate was a threat to disfranchise all Canadian citizens whose racial origin was that of a country at war with Canada. It was a complete racial discrimination against Canadian citizens of Japanese origin. Fortunately the other house debated the bill and made some excellent changes. Unfortunately however the other house and the present amendment have not entirely satisfied my conscience.
There are two principles to which I think the Liberal party has always held firmly. One is against racial discrimination, and the other is that all members of the party shall be perfectly free to express themselves when fundamental and basic issues are at stake. In this instance I see these two things: I see, first, that the government has no intention of embarking upon legislation involving racial discrimination, and that apparently it believes the amendment now before the house accomplishes that purpose. Far be it from me to attempt to teach other members of the house the fundamental principles of liberalism, good government, racial equality and all that sort of thing. We are all agreed upon that.
At one oclock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Mr. Speaker, I was making the observation that it was not for me to attempt to teach Liberalism or democracy to any other member of this house, and! particularly to the members of the government. The head of the government has been preaching and working for democracy even longer than I and under much greater difficulties and larger responsibilities. I said also that there were two main principles in Liberalism, the first being racial equality, and the second that complete freedom be accorded to all members of the party to express their views when fundamental and basic principles are at stake, 100-310
as in my judgment they are in this instance.
I am sure that all will accord me the liberty of saying what I feel it is my duty to say and what I am impelled by conscience to say.
The government thinks, and the government says it thinks that the amendment now before the house is in line with the great principle of racial equality. The Secretary of State has said that every one who had a vote will vote. If that were entirely so I would be satisfied; if I could be made to see that that is so, I would be satisfied. But is it so?
All Japanese in Ontario and other provinces, with the exception of British Columbia, who are British subjects and who are twenty-one years of age right now have the right to vote. All Japs who left British Columbia and came to Ontario at any time in the history of Canada, now have the right to vote in every province of Canada other than British Columbia. The Japs who stayed in British Columbia have now the potential right to vote in every other province so soon as they satisfy the requirements of residence, provided, of course, that they are British subjects. There are thus three classifications.
It is not necessary to argue the complicated details of these amendments and this section. The fact stands out, and nobody wishes to controvert it, that those rights which I have just mentioned are by this bill to be taken away. To my untutored mind, to my simple way of thinking, that is race discrimination, in regard to which I could not remain silent in this house and keep proper relationship with my own conscience and with my own constituents. It is not in keeping with my mandate from the constituents whom I represent, the people with whom I must live I hope for many years to come. It is not in keeping with the fact that I have to live with myself, I hope also, for many years to come.
What the government has done is to refrain from disfranchising those Japs now resident in all provinces other than British Columbia and who were not residents of British Columbia from the year 1938 to 1939. For that concession, and it is a great one, I am thankful. I will vote for this measure and I will vote for it gladly. When the amendment of the Secretary of State has been passed it cannot then be said, as it could have been said had his amendment not been brought in, that all Japanese in Canada who are British subjects are disfranchised upon racial grounds. All Japanese in Canada who otherwise are entitled to vote are not disfranchised upon racial grounds.
Putting it conversely, it can be said that certain Japs can vote in Canada notwithstanding their racial origin. If there is some

Dominion Elections

disfranchisement, it is limited, and for that I am thankful. But unfortunately it will be said, and it can be said if this bill becomes law, that some Japanese are disfranchised in Canada on grounds of racial origin, and this is so expressed in the law itself. It is that residue of disfranchisement that affects my mind in approaching this matter.
On the other hand, those who might take fright because they are members of a racial group which is a minority, should bear in mind that what we are doing now is no precedent. It in no way indicates what we may do upon some other occasion. It must be remembered that the situation arises partly because of a legislative accident and partly because we are in a time of war.
Personally I know very little about the Japanese. I lived in British Columbia many years before the Japaneses arrived. I remember clearly my associations with their great enemies the Chinese and I developed in those days as a child a certain affection for the Chinese which I have carried into my adult years. But, as I say, this was before the Japanese colony arrived and accordingly I know very little about them, as compared with members who come from British Columbia and who have voiced on many occasions, I think unfortunately, their intense antipathy. I bow my head to their superior knowledge in that regard.
I know little about the Japanesee, other than the reports that I have read of the horrors committed by the military clique of Japan; their absolute barbarity, their meanness, their unfitness to live among civilized mankind. There is nothing that can be said in this house denouncing the military clique or the military actions of Japan with which I will disagree. I know little about the Japanese as such, but I know a lot about democracy. It is unfortunate that this incident should have arisen. It is so utterly unnecessary and has placed 'on the spot those who stand for democracy and who would fight for her, who would give their very lives for sound principle. It has placed them in a position of defending democracy and of appearing to defend the Japanese. I know a lot about democracy, and I know that if you can disfranchise yellow men on racial grounds, other groups may be disfranchised in the same way for the same or other reasons. If you keep that up, it will not be long before Canada will be Hitlerized. In Germany they started with the Jews; then came labour, then liberals; after that it did not matter-democracy was a thing of the past. I am apprehensive when we

touch something which even smells of racial discrimination and I am ready to oppose it with everything I have.
I have received a telegram from the Board of Home Missions of the United Church of Canada. This is what it says:
On behalf Board of Home Missions United Church protest strongly against clause 5, subsection 2, bill 135, on the ground of disfranchisement of all Canadian citizens of Japanese race now in process of satisfactory resettlement outside of British Columbia. The resentment aroused among these thousands of Canadian citizens of Japanese race who know no other home and who had hoped to live and die in this country and who by this bill will be left without nationality will be shared by thousands of fair-minded Canadian citizens. Believe this undeserved disfranchisement of Canadian citizens will reflect on the honour of Canada long after the war has been won.
That is the end of the telegram. The writer continues:
We who have had to do with the Japanese Canadians for a number of years feel especially strongly about the injustice of this proposed amendment of the election act. We feel the Japanese Canadians are surely worthy of exactly the same treatment as the German Canadians and Italian Canadians. To penalize one group of Canadian citizens purely on the basis of race is to us undemocratic and unchristian.
I read from a communication from the national inter-church advisory committee:
It seems to us absolutely unfair to put upon the backs of these Canadian Japanese, particularly of the guiltless Canadian born young people among them, responsibility for the actions of the military clique in Tokyo. The majority of them have never seen Japan, they have been brought up and educated in Canada, and their life and loyalty are here.
Someone said from across the floor this morning that most of us belong to minority races. I should like to correct that. In Canada all of us belong to minority races, and even did we not, far be it from me to ever use a majority to deny to a minority its natural rights. I remember when I was a boy my father used to tell me, "Never hit a boy smaller than yourself, because", he said "he may grow". I have always felt that we in the province of Ontario who seem to enjoy a majority in Canada should be very careful indeed never to abuse that power of numbers, lest the others might grow. I could not face the minority groups in my own city-the Ukrainians, the Poles, yes the Italians, and many others-if I allowed this occasion to pass without making myself absolutely clear before this house and the country that, when it comes to racial discrimination of any kind against anybody, count me out.
In my humble opinion, expressed with deference to everyone else who looks at the matter in a slightly different light, there is only one

Dominion Elections
class who should be disfranchised in this country. I refer to men and women who are not British subjects. We never have, and we never will, extend our franchise to those who are not British subjects. So, Mr. Speaker, I shall move:
That there be inserted in clause 5, subsection 2(n), in the first line after the word "person" the following words, "not being a British subject".
You will observe that thereby the viciousness of the clause will be entirely eliminated, because then the franchise will be extended to British subjects who qualify by residence and age and other things of that kind, and will be denied only to those who are not British subjects. Anybody may second it who pleases. I have asked no one.


Mr. FULFORD:: I would like very much to second that.


Thomas Vien: Paragraph (n) of subsection 2 would then read, "Every person not being a British subject residing in Canada whose racial origin" et cetera.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : If I understand this amendment correctly, it is one of which I am in favour, and I shall give it my support. I think I am right in believing that its purpose is to give any Japanese citizen who is a British subject the right to vote in a federal election. The principle involved in this discussion to-day is one which appears to me to be so important that no hon. member can possibly forgo the opportunity of expressing himself on it or of taking sides on this issue.
In this federal house we cannot in any degree be responsible for laws or decisions made in the province of British Columbia, but definitely it is our duty to preserve an impartial judgment on all matters regarding the franchise in the federal field and see to it that the basic principles of democracy are not in jeopardy for one moment by any act or ruling of a provincial government. In war time the rights of minorities, the rights of people who happen to belong to a nation with whom we are at war, must be regarded more carefully than in times of peace.
Undoubtedly, in wartime, hysteria among our people is more easily aroused and can become very dangerous. Personally I am not concerned with the reason why the legislature of British Columbia has made such laws as it has with regard to the Japanese in that province. I am of the opinion that the feeling towards the Japanese did not originate at the beginning of this war. It did not have its basic causes in the fact that we are at war with Japan and that the people of British
Columbia feared action on the part of some Japanese nationals within their province. It is far more deepseated than that. The reason has its basis in the economy of that province. But I cannot help saying that I fail to see why this federal house should take the attitude that British Columbia still has the right to decide whether Japanese in the rest of Canada should vote in a federal election. First of all, who was it who wanted the Japanese removed from British Columbia? It was the people of that province and that government who made the request to the federal government that certain numbers of Japanese be removed from British Columbia. If that province no longer wanted the Japanese there, if they did not want responsibility for providing a livelihood for these people and having them thrown instead on the back of the federal government, by what right has the province of British Columbia now to say what shall be done with regard to these Japanese people outside their province voting in a federal election?
To-day the Japanese who are living in Canada outside British Columbia come under the jurisdiction, I believe, of the Minister of Labour. He was responsible for their removal, responsible for seeing that they had the means of livelihood, and therefore the government of British Columbia, in my opinion, loses all right to consideration on this question of the franchise of these Japanese people. She threw them outside, deprived them of the means of livelihood and refused responsibility for them in that respect, and now she wishes to exert rights over them in the matter of federal franchise. If the people of the province feel that way about it, I think that we in the federal house should assert our responsibility towards the Japanese and see that they are treated as any other people should be treated.
The people of British Columbia are the only ones who can decide what should be done with regard to the Japanese who remain within the borders of that province, but I would like to know if there is a federal member in this house to-day who has a mandate from his constituents to prevent any person-mind you, apart from those who are not British subjects, apart from those who are charged with sabotage of the war effort-from exercising the franchise in the federal field. I do not believe that any federal member has a mandate from his own people so to disregard the rights of a minority people in the federal field of franchise.
To support the amendment which has just been offered seems to me the only means of expressing the democratic rights of people within this country. The amendment made
Dominion Elections

by the Secretary of State still acknowledges the right of British Columbia to dictate regulations with regard to people whom she refuses to have within the borders of her own province, and I really cannot see how any federal member could possibly support such an idea. The number of Japanese citizens remaining in this country is quite considerable. I believe the figures from the Department of Labour are roughly these. There still remain in British Columbia, 15,733 of these Japanese, of whom 73 per cent are Canadian citizens. Outside British Columbia we have only about 4,835 in the prairie provinces, of whom 79 per cent are citizens of Canada, and in eastern Canada there are 3.065, of whom 81 per cent are Canadian citizens. Taking all those east of the Rocky mountains, there are roughly about 6,000, and of that number 4,000, I believe, have the right to vote. But it does not matter how many there are. Were there only 400, were there only 40 or only 4, the principle remains. It is a question of their rights as citizens.
I cannot see where these Japanese citizens are any different from the citizens of any other racial origin residing in any part of Canada. On what grounds can any member in this chamber dispute their right to vote? It seems to me that if British Columbia still wanted to exercise rights over her Japanese people she should have thought of this before throwing them outside the province and on the hands of the federal government. But once she has done that, I cannot see what right she still has in the question of their voting federally. It may be that this refusal of British Columbia to keep all her Japanese people within her borders will do great good to the Japanese, because as long as they were in that province the rest of Canada did not know much about them. Many of us took our opinions about them from what we heard from citizens of British Columbia; but since many of them have been removed and have gone into the prairie provinces and Ontario, the Canadian people are beginning to realize that it is not the colour of a man's skin that makes him a good or a bad citizen, but his training, his upbringing and the question whether he is proud and happy to belong, to Canada. Many of these Japanese who have gone to live in eastern Canada, as we read in manj' magazines to-day, have been accepted by the people among whom they live as decent, honest, fine citizens only willing and anxious to abide by the laws of this country and to do everything they can to make themselves like other Canadians.

Of course the Japanese are the same as any other of the peoples with whom we are at war. I believe we have had a few among them who have been charged with subversive activities. We have had some among the Germans and some among the Italians whom we have had to place in internment camps. We have also had a few hundred Japanese who have been placed in internment camps and naturally they would be debarred from voting. That would be a very natural thing for us all to agree to.- But do we debar either Germans or Italians in this country from the federal vote? Certainly not. As far as I know, even some of those Germans who have been in the internment camp because it is known that they did indulge in subversive activities, but who have since been released by the Minister of Justice, have the vote, and certainly hundreds of these Japanese are not in the same category. So that if we do not debar such German people from the vote, how can we possibly deny the vote to Japanese people who have never at any time given us the same cause or reason to believe that they would indulge in subversive activities in Canada?
The Prime Minister's argument. about Japanese going to the polls and getting mobbed was one of the weakest I have ever heard him put forward. He was afraid of allowing the Japanese the franchise because in going to the polls the rest of the people of Canada might mob them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Pardon me; I did not say anything of the kind. I indicated certain considerations that had to be taken into account, but I made no statement of my own to that effect.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I am sorry, but I must say that the Prime Minister left the impression with me that he thought that if some of the Japanese went to the polls to vote there might be little riots-I believe the word riot was actually used in that connection-at the polls.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that was a consideration that governed when the plebiscite bill passed this house and passed the house without any exception being taken to it. The clause to which exception is now being taken is, I think, a duplicate of that which appeared in the plebiscite bill.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Of course it is some
time since the plebiscite was taken, and I think a good many of us have a very different idea on these matters now from what we had at the time of the plebiscite. We have had

Dominion Elections
reason, to see how peaceful and quiet have been the Japanese who have been moved in to other parts of Canada. I realize that they voted in the Ontario election, and I certainly did not hear of any riots in the Ontario election on the part of people who did not like to see the Japanese going to the polls.
I see no reason to believe that in a federal election there would be anything of that kind. Perhaps at the time of the plebiscite it may have been in the minds of some people, but after all is said and done, even if we do fear that some of the Canadian people would not like to see the Japanese people going to the polls, in my opinion that would be no reason for preventing them. Mob violence has no place in a democratic country. Law-abiding Canadian citizens do not indulge in such things unless they are incited to do so by those who wish deliberately to promote race hatred. Race discrimination is a fascist trend which should have no place in our country. It should be guarded against by our police. We have federal and provincial police in this country to guard the rights of citizens, and if there was any fear that the rest of the people of Canada might indulge in little riots at the polls because Japanese people were going there to vote, then I would say it was our duty to protect the Japanese by seeing that the police were there to stop others from rioting. It would definitely be appeasing such fascist trends to deny the Japanese people the right to vote just because we think such a thing might happen.
So far as the police have been able to tell us, the Japanese people themselves have not been responsible for making any disturbances. I quote from the Vancouver News-Herald, of Monday, July 3, 1944, as follows:
Not a single act of sabotage has been attempted by any Japanese in this province since the outbreak of war with Japan, Deputy Commissioner John Shirras of the provincial police told the annual business conference of the Pacific Coast international association of law enforcement officials. Mr. Shirras spoke on "The Japanese Problem on the West Coast."
"It is a problem that requires care and tolerance," he said, criticizing persons who have "rushed into print" on Japanese matters.
"The public has been unnecessarily inflamed by such individuals," lie added. "The problem is an international one that cannot be dealt with by individuals."
I have already had occasion to speak in this house on what I considered to be the lack of democratic action within the department of the Secretary of State, particularly the selling of the property of the minority group of Ukrainians in this country. I consider that to be an outrage. I also consider it a wrong thing for the department of the
Secretary of State to dispose of the property of the Japanese people in this country, as has been done recently, and for sums of money that are not really anywhere sufficient to cover the cost of the buildings and property concerned. It has more or less resulted in giving this property away. I am very much against this kind of thing. I believe it is a tendency which we should be very willing to correct, and we should see that it does not happen again.
I certainly am against the idea of the army refusing to take Japanese soldiers. I see no reason why hundreds of these young Japanese men, physically fit and well, should not be allowed to go and fight, if they wish to, for the democratic ideals of this country where they were born and which they now call their home. How are we ever to make them into good Canadian citizens unless we give them a chance to fight and work for the things which they have been brought up to believe in, in our schools, colleges and universities? It seems that in the United States they are taking a very different attitude on this whole matter, and I am led to believe that we should be better off were we to follow in their footsteps. In the United States they have 12,000 young Japanese fighting in their armies. One group of roughly one thousand of them went into action in Italy. Numbers of them were wounded and as a result of their gallant fighting many medals and commendations were given to that particular regiment. The property of the Japanese people has not been sold in the United States, and that again is one more protection of their rights which I would like to have seen in this country. In the United States they seem more anxious to maintain the citizenship and the rights of their Japanese-Amerieans.
I should like to quote to the house a brief paragraph from a speech which was made by the Secretary of the Interior of the government of the United States, Mr. Harold Ickes, when he spoke at San Francisco on April 13, 1944, because his words are the words and the sentiments that I myself would like to have uttered. He said:
I hope that the clamour of those few among you who are screaming that this situation (i.e. the Jap American problem) should be resolved on the basis of prejudice and hate will soon be overwhelmed by the stern remonstrances of those among you-an overwhelming majority-who believe in fair play and decency, Christianity, in the principles of America, in the constitution of the United States. . . .
The War Relocation Authority-make no mistake about it-has been criticized for not engaging in this sort of lynching party. Under my jurisdiction, it will not be stampeded into undemocratic, bestial, inhuman action. It will not be converted into an instrument of revenge
Dominion Elections

or racial warfare. ... I am particularly grateful to those groups and individual on the west coast who have been brave enough and Christian enough to speak out against the vindictive,
bloodthirsty onslaught of professional race-mongers. ...
We must all face the problem of the eventual status and treatment of those Americans of Japanese descent who were taken from their homes and transported to evacuation camps. Most of them, after a thorough investigation, the doubts being resolved in favour of segregating them, have proved to be loyal and devoted to their nation (i.e. U.S.A.). It is intolerable to think that these people will be excluded from a normal life in this country for long. It is intolerable to think that merely because they resided on the west coast-in California, or Washington, or Oregon-they must be wards of the government for one moment longer than the necessities of the war require. I know of no virus in these three states which has infected them so that they must be treated differently from the Japanese Americans who reside in other states.
I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what virus has infected the Japanese who have remained in British Columbia and who have been recently brought out to the rest of Canada that makes them different from any Japanese who may have lived in Ontario or any other part of Canada since before the war? There is no difference in those people- none, whatever, so far as I can see.
The purpose of this amendment will, I believe, commend itself to hon. members of the house. I myself cannot agree to depriving any citizen of Canada of any right, believing that if I do so my own rights and the rights of future generations are thus jeopardized. The people who belong to the Japanese race who reside in other parts of Canada-who reside anywhere in Canada, I will go that far-are in my opinion innocent of any sabotage against Canada and Canada's war effort until they are proven guilty. On these grounds I believe that the fullest democracy should be granted to them. I cannot help but think that the government is making the jurisdiction of British Columbia rather an excuse for denying the rights to those Japanese people in other parts of Canada, and I cannot find myself in agreement with such an idea. I whole-heartedly support the amendment which has just been introduced.


Thomas Vien: I have been considering
the amendment which has been introduced. I am of the opinion it is not consequential. If any hon. member wishes to speak on it I shall be glad to hear him now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order which Your Honour suggested, may I say the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) would be to confer the franchise
fMrs. Nielsen.]
not only upon Canadian bom who have left the province of British Columbia but actually upon those who are still in British Columbia. I submit that it is not relevant to the bill as it passed this house on third reading, nor is it consequential upon the amendment as introduced by the other house, and therefore it is distinctly out of order.


Thomas Vien: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: As to the question of the constitutionality of the amendment I should like to make one point. I take issue with the minister in his statement that the amendment I have placed in Your Honour's hands would extend the franchise to the Japanese of British Columbia. As I read the act and the amendments before us. that is not so. I direct attention to chapter 46 of the statutes of Canada, 1938. Section 14, subsection 2 reads:
The following persons are disqualified from voting at an election and incapable of being registered as electors and shall not vote nor be so registered, that is to say-
This is the paragraph in question:
(i) every person who is disqualified by reason of race from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of the province in which he or she resides and who did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-18.
That clause is not affected by the amendments contained in bill No. 135, so that irrespective of what we do with regard to the senate amendments or with regard to section 5 of the bill, paragraph (i) of subsection 2 of section 14 still stands. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not arguing in favour of that section. I think the principle I have stated should also apply to that section, but it is not before the house. The principle stands as I have stated it, but from a legal point of view the fact remains that the minister must have overlooked this subsection. '


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is another point, in addition to the question I raised, that of whether this is a consequential or relevant amendment. The additional effect just mentioned by the hon. member for Trinity makes the amendment now moved ridiculous, because you would have two sections in the Dominion Elections Act of 1938 completely contradicting each other. That is the effect of the amendment now being moved.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) referred to section 14 of the 1938 act, saying that his amendment would

Dominion Elections
not affect it and that it would still remain in force. Let us read what is proposed in section 5 of this bill. It refers to subsection 2 of section 14 of the said act," which is the act of 1938, which I have in my hand and which the hon. gentleman says is not affected. That is the very section. It is idle to say that it is not affected. I entirely agree with the statement of the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I did not say that. I said it did not affect paragraph (i) of that section.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, that is part of the section; that is a paragraph of subsection 2. The principle of amending is set out in citation 589 of Beauchesne, which says an amendment must be relevant or consequential. This amendment is neither.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact two points of order have been raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, though he regarded one as more important than the other. The first point was as to inconsistency between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trinity and the other sections of the bill. In that connection I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity. It seems to me that the limitation on the disqualification which the hon. member for Trinity would write into paragraph (n) would apply only within the terms of paragraph (n) and would not-affeet the other paragraph referred to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It destroys the other paragraph.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As to the other point, it seems to me that if the words inserted by the Jion. member for Trinity had been inserted as an amendment to the senate amendment they would have come within the senate amendment and would have been consequential. I offer this suggestion to the hon. member for Trinity if his amendment should be ruled out of order.


Thomas Vien: As I indicated when inviting the opinions of hon. members, I was of the opinion that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Trinity whs not -consequential upon the amendment moved by the senate. It imports something which was not dealt with by the senate amendment. That amendment dealt with the question of the time of disqualification. The amendment of the Secretary of State was intended to clarify a section which might be ambiguous. As I say, the amendment offered by the hon. member for Trinity has broadened the scope of the senate amendment, and introduced a new principle into both the senate amendment and the bill itself, which has been discussed by the house on third reading. In my opinion the scope of the amendment so broadens it that it is not consequential to the senate amendment, and I therefore rule it out of order.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Mr. Speaker-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has spoken on the bill and Your Honour has given a ruling on the point of order. Now the hon. member cannot speak on the point of order, and he, is out^ of order in rising to speak again on the motion for second reading.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I do not think my hon. friend knows what I am going to say.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not care what the hon. gentleman is going to say. He is out of order in rising to speak again on this bill.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Surely the Chair will hear what I wish clarified. One of the previous speakers suggested that my amendment would have been in order-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I would ask for a ruling on my point of order.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. gentleman insists upon it, I have given my ruling and 1 am not likely to change my mind.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I am not asking that you change your mind. I am asking for clarification.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must resume his seat.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Is it necessary that 1 move-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Trinity should take his seat.


Thomas Vien: I have considered what the hon. gentleman had to say. I have given it very careful consideration and have come to the conclusion which I have announced. Having given a ruling I cannot allow any discussion of it.


Alan Webster Neill: If no one else has a point of order to raise 1 should like to make a few remarks. I have listened patiently all day to ladies and gentlemen from parts of Canada other than British Columbia talk on a subject which is vital to British Columbia and on which the people of British Columbia surely should be best informed. I have offered no objection
Dominion Elections

to their lack of knowledge of the subject, though their ignorance was as pitiful as it was profound, but now perhaps it might be well for the country and the house to have at least some of the facts made known. The hon. member for Battle River will excuse me if I do not follow her argument, because our seats are so far apart, and I have an infirmity in my hearing, that I could not follow all she said.


Mr. FAIR:: I would like to contradict that. The lady is not from Battle River. Her constituency is North Battleford.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg the pardon of both hon. members. I trust I would be too gallant to criticize her remarks. But the hon. member for Trinity is more on my level, and I hope I may be able to answer some of his remarks.
I am sorry that' through rotten draftsmanship this trouble has been imposed upon the house. I am no lawyer, but I am told that this matter was in the hands of a committee of fifteen capable men, who sat at a number of sittings. I believe it is ten or twelve years since I have been given the opportunity to sit on any of these special committees appointed by the government. Probably they think I do not know enough about the situation-or perchance that I know too much. But I do know that if I had been on that committee I would have at least striven-I might not have succeeded-to avoid the horrible mess we have before us to-day.
This business passed the lawyers of the senate and the House of Commons, and I do not suppose there are three men who could state what the latest and1 best amendment is, after so much confusion. If I understood the hon. member for Trinity correctly, he said that the Japanese could vote in British Columbia. Well, that is such a stupendous departure from fact that I do not know where to begin, so perhaps I had better give a little sketch of the situation.
It is often said that it was the C.P.R. who brought them all in.
That is bunk. What happened is this: Possibly the Chinese were brought in to build the C.P.R., but it was not the Japanese at all. They were put on the voters' lists in some by-election-I think it was one in Cariboo. Some enterprising politician had filled the list with Chinamen and Indians. In 1875 in British Columbia they passed a law by which all Indians and Chinamen were struck off the voters' list. That was that.
Then the Japanese began to immigrate, and in 1895 the local legislature added the Japanese to the prohibited list which were not to be put on the voters' lists. Then the question came up as to the dominion franchise. 
This question does not appear in our dominion statutes until 1919, and for that reason some people argue the prohibition did not begin until then. But that is not right. The right way of it is this: Prior to 1919, I do not know just how far back, but probably about the time of confederation, the dominion government had a system in connection with the dominion franchise of adopting provincial voters' lists. Therefore this question of our making the dominion franchise never arose at all, because the dominion just took the provincial voters' lists. And as we took these voters' lists they never contained Japanese or Indians, because they had been struck off. It was only in 1919 that that'was necessary.
And, by the way, there is a point there I might just put in, because it is often alleged [DOT]-"Oh, these poor Japanese, coming here with their hearts bleeding with the desire to vote, the same as we do. The w'hite man is allowed to vote, but they are not allowed this priceless privilege." Pure bunkum! There was a discussion in committee some years ago in connection with voting, as to whether we should not compel the white man to take advantage of this "priceless privilege".
A delegation of Japanese came to Ottawa some years ago and appeared before a committee of the House of Commons which was dealing with the franchise. They were very capable people. One was a professor, one a dentist and another a schoolteacher. I do not remember what the fourth was, but I do remember they were able and cultured people-far better educated than I was, because I never saw the inside of a high school let alone a college. However we were allowed to ask them questions. At this point may I say that the Japanese has a very peculiar mentality. When he gets his piece off by heart, he will make a good yarn of it. But if he is confronted with an unexpected question he will probably break off and tell you the truth. We cross-examined them, and they gave us their story, and then we asked them some questions-the one to which I have just referred. We asked them when the Japanese were prohibited. The witness said, "Well, it never applied to us, because we were prohibited before ever we came here." I said, "Well, you were aware that those were the conditions to which you were coming when you came here?" And he said, "Yes".. So that all this sob story about the poor Japanese being deprived of their rights is all bunk. They knew the conditions which existed, just as one hon. member pointed out the other day in connection with our indemnities. We knew what we were taking when we took

Dominion Elections
the job; and the same applies to the Japanese., because they knew perfectly well that the law was against them. So that they are not being deprived of anything they ever had.
I was going to mention the dominion franchise. In 1919 the dominion government adopted a different method of making up the voters' lists. Instead of taking the British Columbia list, or the provincial lists, they made special lists. A registrar was appointed and he was compelled to make a list of all who were qualified in a certain area. Then it was necessary to do something about these prohibitions. It was in 1919 that the government of the day enacted into law the words which have remained ever since, and which I believe the hon. member for Trinity quoted from the 1938 statutes. It said that where a body of people on account of its racial origin was excluded from the provincial franchise, that prohibition would be carried on into the dominion franchise in that province. That became established in 1919, and it has been carried on since then. They never had the vote. They never were promised it, and never had the possibility of having it. That is how it comes that there is this connection between the dominion and the provinces. That was the way it was in 1919, and it has been continued year after year, with this same prohibition.
This thing which has been started up is all for political effect. It is not as though they were suddenly deprived of a privilege, because the Japanese never had a vote in British Columbia. At least it has been this way since 1895, so far as the Japanese are concerned, and since 1875 in connection with the Chinese and Indians.
The hon. member for Trinity admitted quite frankly-and I give him credit for it-that he knew very little about the Japanese and the situation in British Columbia. He told us that frankly. He said he knew a whole lot about democracy. Quite so; and I am pleased to listen to him when he discusses something about which he is so well informed. But would it not be a good idea to let those who do know what they are talking about deal with the situation in British Columbia? I am the first member who has stood in his place to-day-the first of sixteen members, to express the views of that part of the country from which we come, and with which we are thoroughly familiar. Does the hon. member not think it would be a good idea to give us just a little extra weight in the debate, because we know local conditions?
My hon. friend from Trinity said he had received a telegram, I believe it was, from a
church body, protesting against this legislation. Probably they sent a circular around to all the members some weeks ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I know one member-it was not myself-who wrote back and said, "I have received your letter; it is clear you do not know the first thing about what you are talking about. Yours truly." I was more courteous, and went into a little more detail. However, the principle was exactly the same. I expressed regrets that the head of the church to which I belonged would squander our money in putting out Japanese propaganda- because it is nothing else. It drew a picture of the beautiful conditions under which some Japanese family had been discovered in Ontario, and it was written up to a fare-thee-well-the nice, respectable man, and the ladylike woman with the humble aspect, and the beautiful children, and all the rest of it! This circular said, "We appeal, we the people at the head of our church and your church and all churches appeal."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not mine; mine was not in it.


Alan Webster Neill: You must be a Unitarian.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am a Lutheran.


Alan Webster Neill: You can thank God that you belong to such a church. I expressed regret that I was paying out good money to subscribe to a church that was used for that purpose. They got out the circular and they appealed to the people in Ontario and Quebec, people who did not know the conditions in British Columbia along these lines, to take care of these people who were God's chosen people. They were asked to take them into their homes at a time when our men are being massacred and murdered by them in foreign lands. Our people were asked to take them into their homes and get them jobs because they are God's chosen people.
God's chosen people! The Japanese government held a convention, or whatever you call it, several years ago in connection with religion. They tried to decide what would be the most profitable religion to adopt because there was some talk that the old religion was getting a little threadbare and it might be a good thing to tie up with the other nations and adopt some other religion. They discussed the matter and they decided that the most profitable thing to do was to continue with the old Shinto religion because that would be the most profitable to the ruling class. Under that religion the emperor was the god and it was a beautiful thing
Dominion Elections

because in war time men could be made to believe that if they were killed they would go to the heaven of which their emperor was the god. They would prefer that to being taken prisoner.
These people are being moved out of British Columbia and they are being spread all over Canada like the smallpox disease. They will create little centres and groups of heathens in Ontario, Manitoba and so on. They will not fit in with their Christian surroundings because it is a set policy of the Japanese government to foment that religion. They must belong to it. Some of them have left British Columbia and they will create little propagandist centres for their pagan religion all over Canada. I suggested to these people who sent me these letters that that is not what we paid our good money for in preparing missionaries. We have been sending them to Japan but we could save a lot of money by having them try to convert these people at home. We could send these missionaries to Toronto or Montreal as the case may be and it would save considerable money. They are simply setting up propaganda centres for the spread of heathenism.
If I could take the time I could describe conditions in British Columbia that would make your hair stand on end-that is those of you who have sufficient hair to stand on end. I have never seen members from British Columbia pro-Japanese, but yes-I must be fair and say that there is one member from British Columbia who is at present in Australia. He was elected by the C.C.F. and all the time, in season and out of season, he loyally supports his Japanese, shall I say connections, or whatever it is; I do not know. The late Mr. Woodsworth, who used to sit down near where our friends are sitting now- the Minister of Pensions and National Health will bear me out in this-once said in connection with some bill that he believed in giving the Japanese votes. I asked him if he said that in the last election and he said, "Yes, and I will say it in any election." My friend opposite said, "Is that the view of the C.C.F.?" and he said, "Yes, that is the view of the C.C.F. as a body."
I know the hon, member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said last year that that was still his view and that he would not continue to be a member of the C.C.F. if that view did not prevail. Of course that was a statement by a party. It was a small party, although it has grown smaller since then. It had seventeen members then, and now it has only ten. Naturally that attracted attention and I have no doubt it was wired to Tokyo that night. Inside of three or four

weeks that gentleman and his wife sailed for Japan on a Japanese vessel and I have no doubt that they treated him well while he was there. On his return he had hardly set his feet on the wharf at Vancouver before he was asking for votes for his brown friends and) so on. I leave that nasty insinuation; you can take it as you like. It is bad politics. There are few politicians in British Columbia who are willing-


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


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you, I will have a rest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I speak on behalf of a member of this house who, as Your Honour knows, is absent because of the visit of the empire parliamentary association to Australia. If I heard the present speaker correctly he described something he said against the hon. member for Vancouver East as a nasty insinuation. I suggest if that is so, that it should be withdrawn.


Alan Webster Neill: I think my hon. friend's point is well taken. I did not say anything about him, I said it was I who was making a nasty insinuation. If you think that I should not have called1 it that, I will withdraw.


Thomas Reid: I think the hon. member's reference was to the late Mr. Woodsworth and not to the member for Vancouver East,


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that was the case, and I thank the hon. member for New Westminster for his correction.


Alan Webster Neill: I never argue with the Speaker no matter what my -private opinion may be. But he has not pronounced anything so I think I may continue my brief rambling remarks. In fact I had finished. I could go on for another four or five hours and attempt to draw the true picture. I agree it is natural that eastern men cannot get the viewpoint we have in British Columbia. I am sorry that more weight is not given to the views of those who live in British Columbia and know what they are talking about.
The amendment before the house is simply an attempt to pacify, to remove the possibility of some injustice being done to people in the east. I thought the amendment suggested by the senate was sufficient, but the government in their wisdom have proposed an amendment which sounds a little more intricate. I will not say what is wrong with it because I do not understand it sufficiently. But I do hope we shall not have any more amendments like the one we had this morning which just added the words, "and when" or like the one this afternoon which has been ruled out of order.

Dominion Elections
Some kind friend placed a copy of the United Church Observer on my desk. It contains a picture of Mr. and Mrs. Umehara and daughter Millie in their farm home. I read most of it and really it would make your heart bleed. I am not attacking the Japanese.
I have met some decent Japanese and no doubt some of them would be loyal. But if you put five tons of potatoes in your cellar in the fall and you find many of them rotten in the spring, how can you tell which is which? You must say to these people, "We are sorry, you may not be all you are depicted to be, but we cannot tell, and the innocent must suffer for the guilty." This is a white man's country and we want it left a white man's country.
I suggest that we cannot accept amendments to this amendment unless they are shown to be consequential, and no one as yet has shown me the consequentiality of this one.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has suggested that the people from other provinces should be prepared to listen to British Columbia opinion because the people there are so much closer to the situation. But I think he will understand that it is very hard for hon. members at this end of the chamber to hear everything that is being said at the other end. I think he will also agree that, while people from other provinces should be prepared to listen to what is being said by members from British Columbia, nevertheless the decision should surely rest with a province whether or not citizens resident within its boundaries should be disfranchised, and the people of British Columbia should not expect any other province to bow to their decision in that regard.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ask us to do it with social credit.


Victor Quelch: I did not catch what the hon. member said. The amendment before the house undoubtedly removes many of the objectionable features of paragraph (n); nevertheless racial discrimination will still exist as a result of it; we shall still have a condition whereby the laws of one province will dominate the actions of certain Canadian citizens in other provinces, that is to say, Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry who were residing in British Columbia at the time of the declaration of war and who have removed to other provinces will still be subjected to the laws of British Columbia rather than of the province in which they reside. Therefore as a
result of this amendment we shall continue to have a violation of the rights of minorities on racial grounds.
In my opinion no loyal citizen of Canada should be debarred from exercising his responsibilities as a citizen merely because of his ancestry; and that, it seems to me, is the situation which will exist as a result of this amendment.	I understand that a number of
Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry and Japanese nationals were interned on the ground of subversive action at the start of the war; on the other hand, I understand that none of these Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry who have been moved have been guilty of any acts of sabotage since the war started.	I understand that in the various
provinces to which these people moved their record has been exceedingly good. We have had statements from the Minister of Labour giving us a very favourable record in that regard. I believe several hundreds of these Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry have attempted to enlist in the Canadian army and have been refused, and I think that is a pity, because no doubt they could have been of tremendous value. I recall that during the last war we had Canadian citizens of German ancestry in the army fighting against the Germans, and these men were of tremendous value because they had a thorough knowledge of the language and could be used to advantage. I understand also that some twelve thousand people of Japanese ancestry have been enlisted in the United States army; and surely if good use of them can be made there, we could make similar use of them in the Canadian forces.
We are not fighting to-day merely to defeat Germany and Japan; we are fighting in defence of definite principles. We are fighting for a peace based on justice, and justice must be granted to minorities as well as to majorities. It seems to me that this legislation is a negation of the declaration of principles contained in the Atlantic charter and accepted at Teheran.
I cannot understand, either, why we should single out Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry, why this is not applicable also to Germans and Italians. In saying that I do not suggest for one moment that it should be applied to either of those races; I am opposing the idea of making it applicable to Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry or any other. Once we start enacting discriminatory racial legislation of this kind it is very hard to know just where we shall stop. In view of the tremendous sacrifices which are being made to-day we cannot afford to make mistakes of this kind which may have such serious con-
Dominion Elections

sequences in the future. The cost will be too great. I am sorry that the amendment moved . by the hon. member for Trinity has not been allowed.


George Taylor Fulford: In anything I may say I shall be only echoing the remarks so well made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck). I do not hold any particular brief for the Japanese; in fact, I do not see how anyone can, after the atrocities, of which one has read, that have been committed by them in this war. But to me the matter transcends considerations of race. It is a discriminatory act against one particular race of people; and, like speakers who have preceded me, I do not see how, if you penalize the Japanese in this matter, you leave the way open to discriminate against Hungarians, Bulgarians, Roumanians or other racial groups in the same way who are at present our enemies.
I see in this proposal a great danger to our entire democratic system. We pride ourselves on being an enlightened people, but by this discriminatory action we are trying to make a right by committing a wrong. It is not that I am without sympathy with the position of hon. members from British Columbia. I lived as a child for four years on the Pacific coast, in the state of California, and I know that people on the Pacific coast have a good case. At the same time are we, by singling out the Japanese for this kind of treatment, helping to make those who are naturalized or are second or even third generation Japanese, good Canadian citizens? Are we showing them the light of democracy and trying to get them to break away from old principles of the Samurai? I do not think so. I believe that by denying the vote to the Japanese outside-I repeat, "outside"-the province of British Columbia, who have migrated to other provinces since the outbreak of war on Japan, you are actually driving them back to old and alien principles which may have been instilled into them. In other words, instead of guiding them to enlightened citizenship and enabling them to realize their duties and responsibilities to Canada, you are encouraging them to revert to emperor-worship, to the code of Hirohito.
I strongly condemn any act or subclause of an act which discriminates in any way against the Japanese as a race, not only because I think we are thereby defeating our own purpose, but we are setting up a dangerous precedent by depriving British subjects of the rights to which they are entitled under the laws of the Dominion of Canada as a member of the British commonwealth of nations.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. member allow a question?


George Taylor Fulford: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Is he aware that the Japanese have a dual nationality? They remain Japanese, yet have all the advantages of being British subjects; and they do not assimilate with us. That is why we put them in a different class from Germans and Italians.


George Taylor Fulford: Perhaps I was not very clear in what I was trying to say. I say they will continue to have a dual nationality so long as you discriminate against them. What we should do in this country is to try to lead them away from having a dual nationality, and make Canadians of them.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: It is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the committee. I believe that hon. members of our group who have already spoken have made it clear that what we are fighting is not the matter of whether the Japanese shall vote or not; it is the principle underlying this bill, whereby the franchise of certain minority groups in this country is being curtailed, to which we are opposed. That it happens to be the Japanese who are the particular group is merely an accident. It might be any other group, as stated by the member who has taken his seat.
The Prime Minister states that what the government wishes to do is to see that there is no extension of the franchise at this time to any enemy aliens. To do this, it seems to me, he is accepting the principle that because one province disfranchises a certain group of people that disfranchisement shall follow those people into some other province and prevent them from voting at the next federal election in the particular province in which they may then happen to reside. What the Prime Minister is doing is not to prevent the extension of the franchise but to accept a new principle, which means a direct curtailment of the rights of the franchise, and he is using the fact that one province has already done this as a screen to hide behind.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member rather indicates that it is a new principle. I think he will agree that it is a principle that has been generally followed in section 14 of the general election act, to which clause 5 constitutes an amendment in the recognition of provincial limitations.


Percy Ellis Wright: It does not follow in the election act that because one province disfranchises a certain group of people, those people are therefore disfranchised in any other

Dominion Elections
province. But that is what this bill does. It accepts the principle that because this particular group of people are disfranchised in British Columbia now, they shall be disfranchised in other provinces.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We accepted that principle in subsection (k) of section 14 of the election act, the same thing exactly.


Percy Ellis Wright: No. I cannot agree with the Secretary of State. We are accepting it in this bill, but it has not been a principle that has been in force in Canada until this time.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It was included in the election act.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Japanese in British Columbia have been disfranchised. It was within the right of that province so to do. I am not arguing their rights in that matter. But because they did that, it does not follow that the Japanese should be disfranchised in any other province. These people have moved from British Columbia to other provinces and have come under the jurisdiction of these other provinces and automatically they should obtain the franchise in those provinces unless this bill is passed in the form in which we have it at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The persons of whom my hon. friend is speaking are still citizens of British Columbia. They have moved or been moved from British Columbia temporarily for reasons connected1 with the war. They have been moved through arrangements effected by the government as a war measure which was deemed necessary for reasons of security and in part for the protection of these very Japanese themselves. In most cases they are not persons who have voluntarily left British Columbia to reside in some other province. They are still citizens of British Columbia.


Percy Ellis Wright: Some of these people did automatically leave British Columbia themselves when this question arose. They moved to other provinoes without waiting for the government to move them, and they are being automatically disfranchised along with the others whom the Prime Minister states the government moved1, and who are now residing elsewhere. These people themselves moved to these provinces and1 by vrtue of residence in those provinces for a certain length of time they automatically become eligible to vote therein. I do not think the Prime Minister's arguments are sound, because ordinarily if these people had moved to a province and were Canadian citizens they would have the
vote automatically. Section 5, however, prevents this. It prevents the Japaneses in other provinces from voting, or it did before the senate amendment. The government amendment simply allows Japanese who were Canadian citizens and living in other provinces than British Columbia * prior to the war, to vote, but prevents Japanese Canadians who have been moved from voting.


Thomas Reid: Would the other provinces of Canada have accepted the Japanese if they had not been requested by the government to do so?


Percy Ellis Wright: As far as I know, the other provinces had no laws on their statute books preventing Japanese from entering their boundaries. They never had any law on the statute books to that effect. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) moved an amendment which we believed would change the effect of this bill, but you, Mr. Speaker, did not accept that amendment for the reason that it changed section 5 of the original bill. We propose to move a further amendment which will be a consequential amendment in that it simply changes the time factor in the amendment to the amendment. It does not change the amendment except with respect to time. The amendment we now propose is this:
That the words "at the time of the passing of this act'', namely "July 1, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war resided" be deleted from the amendment and the following words substituted therefor:
"At a time subsequent to the next general election resides":
Also that where the words "on those dates" appear substitute "at that time".
Also for "was disqualified" read "is disqualified".


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member wishes to speak to his amendment I shall be glad to hear him, but I would ask him to address himself to this question. The amendment as moved by the Secretary of State deals with persons who are disqualified, and in the amendment which he is now proposing the hon. gentleman is disqualifying all persons except in relation to a later date, " subsequent to the next general election." I am afraid the hon. member has not seen the implications of the amendment. He would disqualify all at the next general election and entitle them to vote at a subsequent general election. If the hon. gentleman himself wishes to speak to the amendment, or if any other hon. membel wishes to do so;, I shall be glad to hear what is said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As one who seconded the motion, I think it is fairly clear-
Dominion Elections


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am speaking to the point of order.


Thomas Vien: I wish to address a few remarks to the mover of the resolution. I ask him to address himself to the question I have raised with regard to the amendment. If he should like to do that I shall be glad to hear him. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already spoken in the debate and therefore cannot speak again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Vien: No. If the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on his amendment I shall be glad to hear him, but he must address himself to that question.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, if you understood the motion that I made, I do not think you would rule it out of order. It simply changes the date of the coming into effect of a particular section of the act until after the next general federal election. It does not change the qualifications or disqualify anyone who was qualified to vote. All it does is to change the time of the coming into effect. Individuals affected will still be disqualified after the next general election, as they would be under this act in its present form. All this does is to say that prior to the next general federal election these individuals shall not be disqualified. It simply changes the time factor. It will be further changed by section 11 of the act. Section 5 will then go in its place, and it will automatically die with the ending of the war, but it will not change the qualifications of the voters. It will simply postpone the time of the coming into effect of certain disqualifications. These will not come into effect until after the next general election and will die six months after the war, according to section 11. Because it only changes the time factor it is a consequential amendment and therefore can be accepted. If it changed the qualifications of the individuals who could vote, then I consider Your Honour would be perfectly justified in ruling it out. But where it is a consequential motion and changes only the time factor, I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it can be accepted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, I submit that there is no difference whatsoever in principle between this amendment and the one that Your

Honour ruled out of order some time ago. In the second place I submit that not only does this amendment seek to do certain things by a question of time; the effect of the amendment that is sought is this: it changes the whole principle of this bill. It changes the whole principle of the bill which passed third reading in this house; it changes the principle of the amendment that came back io us from the other place, and therefore is not relevant. Certainly it is not consequential. It is the direct opposite to the principle of this bill. It means that these people are going to vote after the next general election, and after that they can be disqualified. Apart from the point of order, this is the most unethical amendment that I ever heard moved in this house.


Thomas Vien: After reading this amendment I have grave doubts as to its relevancy as being consequential to the amendments made by the senate. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, paragraph 589, reads as follows:
When a bill is returned from the senate with amendments, the amendments are read and agreed to, or 'agreed to with consequential amendments, or disagreed to, or the further consideration thereof put off for three or six months, or the bill ordered to be laid aside.
No amendment can be proposed to the senate's amendment save an amendment strictly relevant thereto; nor can an amendment be moved to the bill, unless the amendment be relevant to or consequent upon either the acceptance or the rejection of a senate amendment.
I must come to the conclusion that the amendment submitted by the hon. gentleman is not consequential upon the amendments that have been made by the senate. I think I pointed ouh-


Percy Ellis Wright: Pardon me. May I point out that my amendment is an amendment to the amendment submitted by the Secretary of State; it is not an amendment to the senate amendment.


Thomas Vien: We are dealing with the senate amendment which the Secretary of State has accepted, with an addition to it and therefore consequential to it; but in the amendment the hon. gentleman has submitted he is postponing the date of the disqualification to a period in the future, which is subsequent to the next general election. The principle that he is placing in the amendment is one which was not dealt with by the senate or by this house when the bill was before it. I must rule unhesitatingly that it is not consequential and therefore out of order.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Salaries Act



SALARIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 160, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of ministers.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When this
matter was before the house on Friday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked whether the new ministers named in the bill would automatically receive a car allowance in addition to their salaries. The answer is yes. Each minister of the crown in charge of a department of government is by statute entitled to a motorcar allowance of $2,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one other matter about which I should like to ask a question at this point. I think I shall be understood perfectly when I say that I have no axe to grind, nor has any basic principle been violated, as far as I am concerned. However, something has occurred here to which it seems to me one might call attention more easily in connection with this bill than in some other cases. In view of the experience in connection with the bill with which we have just dealt, members of the government will perhaps appreciate that we are combing through the. bills much more closely than before. When the resolution preceding this bill was introduced on Friday last it read:
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Act to provide that the salaries of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs and of the Minister of Reconstruction shall be ten thousand dollars, respectively.
That is all that was in the resolution, and on the basis of that resolution the bill to be introduced was to provide for two points, salaries for two ministers. When I received the bill in my mail on Saturday morning at first I thought it was the wrong bill, but when I looked it over I discovered that it contained six provisions instead of the two mentioned in the resolution. Those six provisions are: the two salaries named, the salary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a provision that the salary of the Minister of Pensions and National Health shall continue at the rate of $10,000 as long as he occupies that office and two other provisions which change the Minister of Railways and Canals to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Interior to the Minister of Mines
and Resources. There is nothing wrong in any of these changes, nor is there anything we did not expect or anything that should not have been done. It did strike me as strange, however, when we looked over the bill, to discover that on the basis of a simple two-point resolution we were presented with a six-point bill.
I only hope that in the dying days of the session the bills will conform a little more closely to the resolutions that are introduced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is
nothing in this bill which was not covered by the resolution, as far as voting an additional dollar is concerned. It is the amount of money that is the consideration there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The resolution names
two ministers but the bill names three, so that the difference is as between $20,000 and $30,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me explain to my hon. friend. The law clerks who have to do with the drafting of these bills every now and then, when the opportunity occurs, take advantage of the chance to do what they call a little tidying up; that is to say, they bring up to date in one bill changes that have taken place in previous years but which have not been noted in that particular legislation. The designation of the portfolios of two or three of the ministry have been changed. For example, there used to be a Minister of Railways and Canals. His portfolio was changed to that of Minister of Transport. Since the Salaries Act lists several ministers my hon. friend will see cited the Minister of Transport, but he will not find anywhere in the list mention of a Minister of Railways and Canals. Attention is drawn to these changes in the explanatory note; it explains everything. As will be seen there, the person who was known formerly as the Minister of Railways and Canals to-day does not receive a salary under that designation; he receives his salary as Minister of Transport. The same is true with regard to the Minister of Mines and Resources, who was known previously as the Minister of the Interior. When the bill creating the Department of Mines and Resources was introduced it stipulated that this name should be substituted for that of Minister of the Interior. Previously the new minister had been drawing his salary as Minister of the Interior. After that bill was enacted the minister drew his salary, and is drawing it to-day, as Minister of Mines and Resources. So that no additional money is being voted in connection with those two ministers. To-day a salary is voted for the Minister of Pensions and National Health; I am happy to say that my hon. friend to my left has been getting his salary under that designation. However, we
Salaries Act

have created a new Department of Veterans' Affairs, which takes away part of the scope of the department of pensions and health. We have also put through this house, and I have no doubt it will pass the other chamber and be assented to, a bill with respect to national health and welfare, which takes care of the remainder of the pensions and health departs ment. There will be no Department of Pensions and National Health. My hon. friend will see that what is being done here is to make provision for the salaries of new Ministers of National Health and Welfare and of Veterans' Affairs. The moment the new departments are created the salary of the present Minister of Pensions and National Health will be dropped entirely from the salary list. In order in the meantime that the minister may be assured of his salary section 2 provides:
Until such date as the Department of National Health and Welfare Act and the Department of Veterans' Affairs Act, passed at the present session of parliament, come into force by proclamation of the governor in council, the salary of the Minister of Pensions and National Health shall be ten thousand dollars per annum.
In other words, he is continued on the list until the two new departments come into being. It simply comes down to making provision for the portfolio of reconstruction and one other additional portfolio.


Gordon Graydon: It may be that the point I desire to raise has been dealt with while I have been out of the chamber; if so, perhaps the Prime Minister will indicate that to me and I will look up the answer in Hansard. However, I note that the list provides a salary of $15,000 for the member of the king's privy council holding the recognized position of first minister. It also provides a salary of $10,000 for the president of the king's privy council for Canada, and, in addition, a salary of $10,000 for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of course the Prime Minister occupies all three positions. I do not raise this matter because I desire any change made as far as the salary of the Prime Minister is concerned, but I just want to make sure there is nothing in the bill which offends the principle that there shall be only one salary paid to each cabinet minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The auditor general looks after that. I can assure my hon. friend only the one salary is paid. The provision for the president of the king's privy council goes back I think to the last war, when the late Hon. Mr. Rowell was made president of the privy council. I believe there was also some thought of having a separate minister for the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs. I can assure my hon. friend that no

minister of the crown can draw more than one salary. Fortunately in this case one salary is larger than the other, so that the minister if he holds all three has a choice.


Gordon Graydon: It is a good thing the Prime Minister has the choice, because otherwise he might not fare very well.
I have no doubt the Prime Minister has considered a different arrangement in connection with the portfolio of Secretary of State for External Affairs. One must consider the heavy burdens a Prime Minister must bear, not only as first minister of the land, but also as President of the Privy Council. Added to that has been the work connected with the Department of External Affairs. Indications are that, as time goes on, that work will be more extended.
I am wondering if the Prime Minister would care to comment on the possibility of having a separate minister for the portfolio of Secretary of State for External Affairs? I do not raise the matter as one of immediate possibility, but I do so having in mind the fact that the Department of External Affairs will undoubtedly become more important as time goes by. I take it the Prime Minister has in mind, perhaps not for his government, but for succeeding administrations, the possibility of recommending a change in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe it was about a year ago I spoke about this matter, and indicated that, personally, I would greatly welcome having at an appropriate time the portfolio of external affairs held by another minister of the crown. But since the war began, it has been almost impossible to separate some of the questions which come before the government for consideration from the Prime Minister's office and the Department of External Affairs. It would have been very difficult for the Prime Minister from day to day to have done other than have most of his time taken up with matters relating to external affairs.
For this reason I have assumed the burden, one which I believe is heavier than anyone would wish to assume, unless he thought that in doing so he would serve some really helpful and useful purpose. Everything considered, I think it has been just as well not to have the change made at the present time. However, I do agree entirely with my hon. friend the leader of' the opposition that in a subsequent parliament whoever may have to do with these different positions would be wise if he were to seek a minister to fill the portfolio of external affairs, with duties apart altogether from those of the Prime Minister.

Salaries Act
The President of the Council raises another matter. I believe this office was billed in the first instance by Sir John A. Macdonald, while he was Prime Minister, so that, in that way, he might have before him something in the nature of a survey of the work of the government as a whole. In the position of President of the Council, I have found that it has worked out in that way. The Prime Minister does get a knowledge of the work of the cabinet as a whole, through presiding at meetings of council. I should think he could not obtain much of that knowledge otherwise. There may be occasions, however, when it would be desirable also to have that position held by a separate minister. I can assure my hon. friend that the duties of these respective offices are certainly heavy enough to warrant their being held separately.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill in committee, but I would make a few remarks with respect to new appointments to be made. In my years in public life, which go back some considerable time, I have always felt that in the choosing of cabinet ministers, prime ministers have too often paid more attention to geographical appointments than to making appointments with due regard to the callings of the men affected.
In this chamber, like the Prime Minister I am surrounded by lawyers, doctors and other professional men. To my left we see the party which is hoping to gain a few seats, if possible, and they are overwhelmed with schoolteachers and ministers of the gospel.


Mr. BRYCE:: Do not forget the farmers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are one or two. But they do not farm-except the people. I realize, of course, that anything we say would have very little effect on the Prime Minister's choice. But in the present cabinet-and I do not say this in any unkindly spirit-I do not see the representation I should like to see. In the dominion we find industry, agriculture and labour. These three groups compose the major part of our population. In my view the labour portfolio should be administered by one who knows labour, and agriculture by one who knows agriculture. The portfolio of national revenue is not, in my opinion, a legal portfolio at all. It has been my view that that is a portfolio suited to a business man, because the minister would deal with industry, with tariffs, with regulations connected with customs duties, and matters which are connected solely with the industrial life of the country.
The Minister of Public Works-and again I say this in the most kindly spirit-should be someone who is a builder, or who knows something about building. I do not think a lawyer is particularly well fitted to hold the portfolio of public works, simply because he has a legal mind. In the whole cabinet at the present time I do not find one man who has been engaged in industry. The nearest one would come to an industrialist is to be found in the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who was a contractor, builder and engineer.
It is my belief that the men who should administer departments in the post-war should be men who have not been particularly trained in law or medicine, but men who have been trained in the hard way in the departments over which they would have to preside. I believe the people would have more confidence in the new departments if men with practical knowledge of the various subjects involved were chosen to head those departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the matter of the selection of ministers in a country as broad as Canada, and with interests as diverse in many parts, it is always necessary for a Prime Minister to have regard to questions of geography, race, religion and other considerations. The hon. member has introduced an additional consideration, namely that relating to callings or occupations. Within certain bounds it is true that considerations of the kind he has mentioned should weigh. But the weight to be given to them must necessarily largely depend upon the personnel of the house, and the number of persons of different occupations who are elected.
In choosing ministers of the crown I believe the best administration is to be achieved where regard is had first and foremost for the intelligence and integrity of the persons appointed. A man of ability, sound judgment and high attainments would to my mind fill much better any portfolio of government that might be allotted to him than could possibly be the case with others who might seem to have qualifications on the grounds of calling or occupation, but who did not have the required attainments in other ways.
Perhaps I may say something that I have said to my colleagues many times. I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend opposite, the hon. member for Yale. If I were asking him to come into the government and he were prepared to come I would be prepared to put him into almost any portfolio because I think he would administer it with a high degree of intelligence, integrity and ability. I do not know whether I could say quite the same about my hon. friend.
Salaries Act


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We were both bom in the same county.


Gordon Graydon: May I say just one word to the Prime Minister? I hope that in stating the qualifications for men who might enter the government he was using that word in its broadest sense.


Mr. BURTON:: The hon. member for Waterloo South has opened up an issue which I for one do not intend to follow. I have always been of the opinion that it was the responsibility of whoever might be called upon to carry out a government to select their own ministers for the cabinet. I can assure the hon. member for Waterloo South that wrhen we in this group form a government we shall have a cabinet with which he will have very little to do.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You will have to shove your whiskers back when you do that.


Joseph William Burton: I notice that section 4 lists the various members of the cabinet and their salaries, and the list includes the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of National War Services. Apparently these two departments are to continue to be recognized as full-fledged departments. But the list mentions only one Minister of National Defence, and I was under the impression that the Department of National Defence for Air and the Department of National Defence for Naval Services were two separate departments. It seems strange to me that they should be left out of the list when it would be expected that the other departments would disappear from the picture much earlier.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the salaries of the Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services are covered by the war appropriation act. These portfolios were created since the commencement of the war and the salaries have been provided for in that way. If it is decided to continue both of these departments after the war provision for the salaries will, I assume, be transferred by some subsequent amendment to the Salaries Act. If the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of National War Services should disappear, the salaries now being paid will also disappear.


Grote Stirling: I was called out of the chamber a few minutes ago and just before leaving I thought I understood the Prime Minister to say that the $2,000 motorcar allowance is statutory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Grote Stirling: In what statute does it appear?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is covered by the Appropriation Act, No. 5, 1931, which is chapter 61 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That in order to ensure a greater measure of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity, it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide:
1.	That family allowances, effective as from the first day of July, 1945, be paid in respect of each child in Canada under sixteen years 01 age, in accordance with the following scale:
in respect of a child less than six years old, five dollars per month;
in respect of a child six or more years old but less than ten years old, six dollars per month;
in respect of a child ten or more years old hut less than thirteen years old, seven dollars per month;
in respect of a child thirteen or more years old but less than sixteen years old, eight dollars per month;
Provided that the above rates shall be reduced; by one dollar per month in respect of the fifth child;
by two dollars per month in respect of the sixth child and seventh child; and
by three dollars per month in respect of the eighth child and any additional child or children;
2.	That the reduction in tax under the Income War Tax Act allowable to a taxpayer by reason of a child shall be reduced by an appropriate amount based upon the family allowances payable under the said measure;
3.	That the amounts required under the said measure be paid out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund;
4.	That the expenses necessary for the administration of the proposed act be paid out of the moneys appropriated by parliament for such purpose.
He said: A few moments ago I mentioned in the house, in the temporary absence of the leader of the opposition, that if the house were prepared to have the debate on family allowances take place on the second reading of the bill rather than on the resolution I would be prepared to proceed this afternoon with the resolution, but that if it were the desire of hon. members to debate the resolution at length I would prefer to allow it to stand to-day and proceed with some other order and then debate the resolution on a subsequent

Family Allowances
[Stage Direction]
occasion. . The hon. member for Yale stated that he understood the leader of the opposition expected me to make a brief statement on the resolution and that the leader of the opposition desired to make a statement, but that beyond that it was not the intention oi desire of the official opposition to have a debate take place on the resolution. I mentioned also that I had asked the whip to have inquiries of -the leaders of other groups in the house, and he had obtained their assurance that they would prefer to have the debate take place on the second reading and have the bill introduced at as early a moment as possible.
The bill based on the resolution is intended to implement the following paragraph which appeared in the speech from the throne:
The family and the home are the foundation of national life. To aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being to the children of the nation and to help g-ain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity in the -battle of life, you will be asked to approve -a measure making provision for family allowances.
I 'believe it would be much easier to acquaint hon. members with the several provisions of the bill by having the bill immediately before them, and if before attempting an explanation at length, they have an opportunity to study its sections. The resolution is necessary- as the bill involves the expenditure of public moneys. I imagine that what hon. members will be most interested in ascertaining immediately is the estimated necessary expenditure should the bill be enacted. The Department of Finance and the 'bureau of statistics have made an estimate of the annual cost of the family allowances on the basis set forth in the resolution. The estimate of the gross outlay is something over $250,000,000. The amount that will be recovered due to the corresponding reduction of present income tax allowances, estimated at the present tax rates, is from $50,000.000 to $60,000,000. That would bring down the net cost to approximately $200,000,000. That is all I wish to make in the way of a statement at the moment. If there are questions hon. members wish to ask in committee I shall try t-o answer them.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make
a few brief observations with respect to the resolution. No political party and no group of citizens in Canada can validly claim to have a monopoly on the determination to see that the children of this dominion, who constitute by far our most valuable national asset, are given a square deal and the fullest of opportunities in the new and better era of to-morrow.
The Progressive Conservative party takes a determined and vigorous stand in favour of meeting immediately the health and welfare needs of the people of this country, especially of our mothers and their children. Let that be clearly understood right at the beginning. We take second place to no party in this parliament in the advocacy, promotion and execution of the necessary measures to assure decent, wholesome life, social justice and equality of opportunity to all of Canada's cititzens. That, we contend, calls for governmental programmes which not only will make possible equality of opportunity and decent levels of self-support for those capable o-f providing for themselves and their dependents, in a civilized Christian state, but means also a fair and just bearing of the burden of meeting adequately the needs of those who, by age, condition or circumstance, would otherwise falter and fall in this race of life.
The resolution indicates only in skeleton form the nature of the bill which will be founded upon it, and only when the bill is introduced will the plan and objectives of the government be fully disclosed. There is no occasion for a duplicate debate, and we prefer to allow the resolution to pass quickly in order that the house shall be fully informed of the government's policy before a comprehensive discussion is initiated.
May I suggest to the government, therefore, that the bill be introduced without delay so that its provisions can be thoroughly analysed, after which our course of action will be made known in the light of what, in our opinion, will best promote the interests and welfare of the children of Canada and the life and destiny of this dominion.
With our rights thus reserved, we are content to allow the resolution to be carried, on the understanding that the bill will be introduced to-day.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and- bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 7, consideration in committee of bill No. 133, to amend the Aeronautics Act-Mr. Michaud1- Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Section 11 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Aeronautics Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 12-Licences.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: On several occasions I have referred to section 12, subsection 1, wherein the following words appear:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
I am not going to deal at any length to-day with the arguments heretofore advanced with regard to this section. Suffice it to say that the attitude which we on this side of the house have taken is that what should be a free and independent board set up for the purpose of determining rights in a quasi-judicial manner will in fact be a board entirely under the control of the minister, and we feel that to vest power in the minister such as will be vested under this section is arbitrary, dangerous and autocratic. I am not going into the arguments advanced in that behalf except to say this, that the board set up to grant licences as between various claimants will be a board apparently possessing powers but in fact having no powers except subject to the minister, with the result that any decision which this board would come to would be in effect the minister's own decision. The board, finding itself in the position of having three or four applicants for a licence, and determining that one certain applicant has the proper qualifications and is the most entitled to the licence, would make a decision thereon subject to the minister's approval; in effect the board would be a pawn in the minister's hand and a body which, while appearing to have powers, would be in effect .merely a stooge of the minister.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move:
That section 12, subsection 1, be amended by deleting the words in the first line thereof, namely "Subject to the approval of the minister",
-so as to set up a board which will have powers, a board which can make judicial or semi-judicial decisions without the control of the minister. An analogy would be to set up a court of law with power to make judgments but whose judgments would be effective only if the Minister of Justice agreed therewith; there would be in effect a denial of every principle on which out jurisprudence is founded.
This section is different from any section in corresponding legislation in either the United States or Great Britain. For that and other reasons which have been heretofore advanced I move the amendment in order to take away from the minister the right, in fact, to control decisions, judicial and semi-judicial, made by the board to the end that the board shall be free, impartial and uncontrolled.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain why he deems it necessary to take this extraordinary power? Why is it not sufficient to leave in the hands of the new board the discretion to issue licences?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The amendment proposed and the government's policy represent two wholly opposite views of responsible government. The amendment proposes that the domain of air be taken out of the hands of government, taken away from parliament, and turned over to a board of three members appointed for a long term. This board, quite independent of the minister and of parliament, would then distribute the empire of air as would seem wise to the board. The view of the government is that responsibility for the domain of the air is a federal responsibility, having been so determined by the privy council of the United Kingdom, and that it shall be the responsibility of the government of the day. This board is intended to advise the government, to examine various applications and to determine points for or against each. The government will hardly act against the advice of the board. If it believes that the board has not chosen wisely, it may ask the board to reconsider. That is quite within the realm of possibility, and that has been the attitude with respect to appeals from the board of transport commissioners throughout the years. The privy council, while it has the right on appeal to reverse decisions, has never done so. It has never taken action on appeals from the board of transport commissioners except to refer a matter back for rehearing. My hon. friend says that this differs from legislation in the United States. That is not so. In the United States the authority considers applications from air lines and makes recommendations to the executive power. The executive power may accept such recommendations or refuse to accept them, but the power in the United States is in the executive, and not in the board. In the United Kingdom the matter of air line franchises is dealt with by a department of government just as had been the practice in Canada up to 1938. This is not an abrogation of power on the part of the minister. He has always had the power. He abrogated it to the board of transport commissioners, with certain restrictions, in 1938, but experience since that time has shown that it is desirable that the government should itself retain responsibility and exercise its judgment, in matters affecting air routes. As I say, we are presented with two totally different viewpoints, and if my

Aeronautics Act
hon. friend presses his amendment the committee must choose which is preferable as a means of carrying on democratic government.


Howard Charles Green: For the last six years the power to issue licences has been in the board of transport commissioners, as the minister knows, according to section 13 of the Transport Act of 1938. Will the minister explain in what ways that provision has presented difficulties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position since 1938 has been rather the reverse, The government has had the responsibility for proclaiming air routes. After the government has proclaimed a route, the board of transport commissioners chooses the operator of that route. The method of choosing the operator is laid down completely in the Transport Act, which was drawn primarily to cover railway problems. It was amended to some extent when the board was given responsibility for selecting operators of air routes.


Howard Charles Green: The Transport Act was not drawn to cover railway problems.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Railway Act was amended and called the Transport Act at the time responsibility for air was included in the act. The Railway Act is a comprehensive one and was drawn to cover the operation of railways, but it was amended in a minor way when provision was made that it should also have jurisdiction over inland water navigation and over air transport.


Howard Charles Green: The Transport Act was a brand new act; it was not an amendment to the Railway Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was an amendment to the Railway Act.


Howard Charles Green: The Transport Act is chapter 53 of the statutes of 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Transport Act was an amendment to the railway act. The amendment included a change in the title.


Howard Charles Green: The Railway Act is still in
existence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The Railway Act is not
in existence.


John George Diefenbaker: The Railway Act not in existence?


Howard Charles Green: The minister is wrong in that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have just been advised that the hon. member is correct. I was given the effect of the Transport Act. The Transport Act is a short act which is an addition to the Railway Act rather than an amendment, but
the effect of it was to amend the Railway Act; as witness the fact that the name of the board was changed from the board of railway commissioners to the board of transport commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: It gave them wider powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It has been called to my attention that the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), speaking in the debate on July 7, 1944, made this statement at page 4618 of Hansard:
What did it add up to in the past? A board sat behind the scenes, never reporting to parliament, and franchises across the country were sold to their friends on the basis of patronage. . . . We are beginning to drag out from behind the scenes a very good business that has been handled on the basis of patronage and in favour of monopolies.
That is a wholly improper statement and it is wholly incorrect. The board of transport commissioners have dealt with air matters exactly in accordance with the provisions of the act. Any decision it has made has been based on sound law as drawn up in the act, and I know of no decision that could have been made under the act differently from the decision given by the board of transport commissioners. If anything, they were too tightly bound by the act, and made decisions that must have seemed of doubtful wisdom to the board; nevertheless the board have acted wholly within their jurisdiction in any decisions they have made in the matter of air franchises. I wish to make that quite clear. I do not know whether I have answered my hon. friend's question.


Howard Charles Green: I asked what the difficulties were that had arisen, Apparently there were great difficulties, and as a result the government is now changing its policy and taking away all power over air transport from the transport board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that the matter of developing air routes and assigning them involves questions of policy rather than questions of law. The board of transport commissioners have been simply judges interpreting a law. The board exercises no initiative in suggesting air routes, or in planning the development of the air system. That practice was a mistake. The fault was not in the board of transport commissioners; the fault was in the act which bound them too tightly to certain procedure. My hon. friend will observe that in this case we have not attempted to bind this board by elaborate procedure. Rather we have asked the board to develop its own procedure through experience, which I think is the only sound way to proceed.
Aeronautics Act

The purpose of this bill is to set up a board of three men who have a knowledge of air transport work, who have a knowledge of Canada, who have a knowledge of the problems which they will be expected to deal with. That board will be asked to advise the government on matters of policy, to study the maps of Canada and the maps of the world, to attend to every detail on air matters. I can assure my hon. friend that the pressure of problems 'arising in the air takes a very considerable part of any minister's time, and, with only the advice of the department officials available, I will say quite frankly it is not getting the attention at this moment that it deserves. As a result of this bill, we hope to bring in three men of sound judgment and solid background, of air transport knowledge, and we hqpe to make progress much more rapidly in the future than we have in the past. However, when this bill becomes law the government will continue to be responsible to parliament for any franchise in the air that may be awarded in the future.


Howard Charles Green: Why was it necessary to give power to this new board to decide between applicants for a route? I can quite see that an advisory board might be of great assistance particularly since under section 15 of the Transport Act the governor in council had power to decide what routes should be flown. Why go farther and give this new board, which is not really a judicial board but an advisory board, the job of deciding between A and B as to who is to fly a particular route. Would it not be far better to leave that to the present board of transport commissioners, who would exercise their judgment in a judicial way, having in mind that there should not be undue competition and who was best qualified to fly a route and so on? It seems to me that would be a far wiser way to handle the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A decision of that kind is usually not a judicial one. There are a great many facts to be marshalled. The procedure in the United States is as follows. A certain route is opened for award. Applications are usually filed by every air line in the country. It takes many months, sometimes years, to sort out the applications. Each applicant must present a brief, which comes before the board. That brief gives reasons why the route should be awarded to the applicant's air line. We have been applicants at Washington ourselves; we know something of the procedure and something of the time element involved. The most careful study is made of the relative merits of each applicant, and in due course a finding with reasons is brought down as a

recommendation to the executive that the route be awarded to one of the applicants. I think the executive has always acted on the advice of the aeronautics authority, and I presume that the executive here will act on the advice of this board. The board has its own experts to advise it and has the time and the means to study the relative merits of each application, and is thus able to give the government a sound reason to support its recommendation. But to me the great important duty of the board is to study the development of air transport in Canada and to advise the government on a sound policy to be followed in that development, and to make sure that the development is pressed as rapidly as the equipment situation will permit.


John George Diefenbaker: May I touch on one matter in connection with the control of aeronautics by the dominion? The minister referred to the privy council decision, but the privy council did not make a decision on question No. 3, which was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, and regarding which there was no decision made by the privy council; therefore the matter as to whether or not there is exclusive control in so far as regulation and control in the dominion parliament is concerned has not yet been decided by the privy council. Question No. 2 was as follows:
Is legislation of the parliament of Canada providing for the regulation and control of aeronautics generally within Canada, including flying operations carried on entirely within the limits of a province necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada, or of any province thereof, under the convention aforementioned, within the meaning of section 132 of the British North America Act, 1867?
That question was answered by the Supreme Court of Canada, but was not answered by the privy council; therefore the privy council judgment 1932 AC54, does . not decide the proposition that the minister has just stated. The answer of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was:
No if the word "generally" in the question was equivalent to "in every respect."
The minister by his own answer has advanced the strongest possible reason why this board should not be controlled by the minister. Under the Transport Act the board of transport commissioners are a semi-judicial body. The statement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South indicated that this body had acted in a way that was contrary to the law of this country; in fact, that it had acted improperly. The minister now says that suggestion is unfounded, but he does find fault with the board of transport commissioners.

Aeronautics Act
I would point out that the reason why he finds fault with them in so far as aviation is concerned is that their decisions were based on law and on the act and therefore were not satisfactory. What the minister tries to do by section 12, subsection 1, is to secure in his hands a board which inferentially will not be bound too tightly by the law or by the provisions of the act. In other words, he wants to have a board set up which ostensibly will be required to carry out the law in the act, but when it does, on occasion its decision may not be ratified by the minister in the decision arrived at. The minister may say that there is a similar principle in the United States. Let me say to him that there is no such principle in the Aeronautics Act of the United States; in the United States the executive and the legislative are separate; hence the provisions of that act.
The minister says that in Britain the department of government controls. Let the department of government control here. Why have a board to go through the motions? Why pay a board $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 a year for the purpose of going through motions, for the purpose ostensibly of carrying out the law but carried out only when the minister believes it should be carried out, while in other cases stretching the law or entirely disregarding it when the minister believes it is a matter oi policy to do so?
I object to the setting up of a board whose powers will be limited; who will not be permitted to comply with the law if the minister believes the law ought not to be complied with, and whose creation will permit the practice of discrimination in the awarding of valuable air franchises. The main function this board will perform, as far as the minister is concerned, is that it will recommend something that should be done. A board of three members, drawing large salaries, will be set up although we have a board now, the board of transport commissioners, who are far from overworked. They receive very considerable salaries, as they should in the position they occupy. We are to set up a new board, depriving it of the privilege of exercising judicial functions. We are going to take away from it the right to carry out sound principles of law, and of exercising sound discretion. We are going to set up a new board, whose members again will receive large salaries, for the purpose of making recommendations which cannot be carried into effect without the minister's approval. The minister speaks of ministerial responsibility, but that is not what we have here. This amounts to judicial irresponsibility,
if the board is set up in this form. There is nothing like this under any act of the parliament of Great Britain.
The minister says the administration of aviation concerns matters of policy, which is v the responsibility of the minister and the department. Then why set up the board, unless it be that we are creating a number of new positions at very fancy salaries, to be distributed at this time. I object to the setting up of the board in the first place as unnecessary; but if it is to be set up, then it should have power, responsibility, discretion and, as the hon. member for Carleton says, independence. Think of the possibilities of the position of this board. I am not in any way suggesting that the minister would have any ill-feeling against any group or applicant who might come before this board, but human nature being what it is, if a minister disliked any company or any individual he could arbitrarily refuse a licence, regardless of the qualifications of the company or the individual applying. If parliament grants the minister that power, in effect parliament thereby abdicates its right to the assurance that individuals appearing before a board set up by parliament shall not be denied justice.
The minister's only reply is that this novel change is introduced because we must look at the air situation throughout the world as well as in Canada, and matters of policy must be considered. Well, Mr. Chairman, policy is considered to-day. The governor in council sets up the routes, which means in effect that they are set up by the government of the day. They make the policy, as to where aviation facilities are to be provided, and the board decides as between various claimants for licences. I am going to ask the minister one very pointed question in regard to the -board of transport commissioners. He stated that the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Breton South was ill-founded. Now I want to ask the minister whether the board of transport commissioners ever awarded a licence which the minister himself would not have awarded if he had been in the position of the board. I should like the minister to answer that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never having been in the
position of the board, I cannot say.


John George Diefenbaker: Then what is the
criticism of the board? The minister says he does not know that they have ever made a mistake, which inferentially means that as far as he is concerned any licences they have awarded would have been awarded by him. Yet now he wants to continue the present board, restricted to the narrow field of railway
Aeronautics Act


Gordon Graydon: Does not the minister think the policy the government now seems bent upon pursuing will bring about in this country a rather chaotic condition in the days that lie ahead, with respect to transportation and communication? After all, there must be some integrating of the transportation facilities of a nation such as Canada.
The minister appears to be taking a retrograde step, if I may say so, because first of all he is separating the railways from air transportation and, in addition to that, he is taking away from the board of transport commissioners any powers connected with air routes. This involves at the same time a
fMr. Diefenbaker.]
further step in separating these two systems. I think the minister and government might very properly review and reconsider their position in this respect.
While I am not an expert in transportation matters, yet I believe even laymen who will look at the transportation problem in Canada cannot help seeing the difficulties, and I believe may justly express some fear of the future when there is no reasonable amount of integration among the various kinds of travel. If we are giving this new board certain powers and talcing away from the board of transport commissioners any jurisdiction it might have over air transportation, this board would have lesser powers, and would actually be just a good and obedient hired man for the minister. In plain, ordinary terms that is what the bill means. It will further emphasize the cleavage between two great modes of transportation.
The problem of general communications also comes to my mind, and I have in mind radio particularly. The suggestion has been made this year in the committtee or radio broadcasting that, in view of the fact that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in competition with privately owned stations, an independent board should be set up to adjudicate between the two. If in Canada we are to have a board of transport commissioners to handle matters connected with railway travel, and at the same time to have another board to handle air transportation, and another to handle communications, the government should watch carefully to see that this does not proceed too far. I would urge that the minister give this matter serious consideration before we embark upon setting up a variety of boards, the integration of which would become increasingly difficult in the years which lie ahead.
I raise my voice against the proposal of the minister as contained in section 12, and I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. This board must be one thing or another, as I see it. The minister is attempting to make it a part of several things, and when he gets finished with it it will end up, not as a board, but rather just another department under the minister.
There is no other way in which this can be interpreted. Certainly it is not the kind of board that the board of transport commissioners has set out to be. In effect this board is simply the chore boy of the minister. Air transportation, in its present condition, deserves something more by way of independence. It should have an independent board whereby everyone would be able to receive a fair deal. I am not suggesting that the

Aeronautics Act
minister would intentionally give anyone an unfair deal but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, human nature is human nature. I do not think it should be necessary for an applicant to have to approach any particular political party when he wishes to take action in this respect. He should be in a position to go to an independent body. That body would then give its decision, in the light of existing circumstances.
I would ask the minister to consider where all this is leading, from the point of view of a wide distribution of authority, and a wide distribution of the various measures controlling our transportation and communications. I would ask him, after having made a survey, to see if there could not be some better means of integrating these various factors and influences which to so great an extent enter into our normal national life.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I might not know much about transportation in the air, but I think if the hon. member for Broadview had been here he would have put in a word for responsible government. This board is not to be made up of members of parliament. Is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: They are not to be responsible. If the amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre is approved, the board will not be responsible to the minister. Therefore the minister would not be responsible for the board. Therefore the electors all across Canada would not have any say in it at all. If any mistake is made, the minister would not be responsible and would not be held to account. I have no doubt the leader of the opposition believes that if the present minister were in charge everything would be all right. If there were a change there might be some risk. But any man who has charge of aviation will be responsible to the countiy. The minister should have that responsibility, and the board should be responsible to the minister.


Gordon Graydon: Would the hon. member have our judges elected?


Mr. BOUCHER:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I should say a few words at this point. I am not conversant with civil air transportation, but I would look at that feature of the air transport board which establishes it as a judicial body deciding judicial questions.
Let us consider three different events. First, an applicant wants to get a licence. Instead of going to the air transport board directly he must go to the minister, to see that the application meets with the minister's
approval. The transport board must approve, too. If the applicant went to the board for instance, their decision would be governed by the minister's approval.
Those of us who believe in British institutions are proud of one thing, perhaps more than another, and that is the independence of our judicial bodies. Hon. members must keep in mind that a decision by the air transport board must meet with the approval of the minister of the day. When an applicant applies for something from the board he knows that the board must make a decision which will meet with the approval of the minister himself. How can an. applicant expect an impartial ruling from the board such as we would expect from our judiciary, under British institutions? How can an applicant expect to. get an opinion purely non-political and nonpartisan, and purely judicial, when that opinion is subject to the control of the minister?
Some talk about the control of parliament. Well, control of parliament is one thing, but control of the minister is another. There is a vast difference. I say that for the sake of efficiency a board must be independent. It must be assured that it cannot be accused of political influence, and it must not be subject to the approval of any one man or any one set of circumstances. Such a board should have the privileges extended to a judicial body. It should be their minds that speak; it should not be the mind of the minister that gives the verdict.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Grote Stirling: I cannot understand why the government considers it necessary to adopt a totally different method of administering travel by air or air transportation from the one it has to administer travel by land and water. It is realized by all that when the end of the war comes there will be a considerable increase, a surge forward in transportation. A hundred years ago the United Kingdom went through such a surge forward in transportation by land. Sir Robert Peel or whoever was prime minister in those days did not see fit to put the administration of transportation into the hands of one of his ministers. Schemes were considered on their merits before a parliamentary committee.
We carried on somewhat in the same way in this country. Where a railway extension is contemplated a bill comes before this house and is sent to the railway committee. I do

Aeronautics Act

not understand why it is necessary to have a totally different form of government for schemes by air as compared with government for schemes in connection with other forms of transportation. Why is it necessary for so much power to be put into the hands of a minister; it does not matter who the minister may be? I think the minister should explain this essential difference in connection with the government of transportation by air.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment I would remind my hon. friend, as he has already reminded the committee, of the method of granting franchises for surface transportation. A bill is prepared, brought to parliament, sent to a committee which in turn reports to parliament, and then parliament decides whether the franchise shall or shall not be granted. The purpose of this amendment would be to take that power, exercised by parliament in the case of railways, and in the case of our airways turn it over to a bureaucracy not responsible to parliament. It has been said that the members of the board can be dismissed for cause, but I wonder what the public reaction would be if the board were dismissed because it departed from the wishes of parliament in the placing of franchises. I hardly think that that would be considered as good cause for the dismissal of high placed public servants, under the practices of a British parliament.
Perhaps I can explain why bills for air lines are not brought to parliament. The practice is not new, dating back to 1918 or 1919. Air is a much more fluid means of transportation than transportation by land. A railway franchise is a permanent thing. Rails are laid down, and the operator is bound to operate trains over them until relieved of his responsibility by the board of transport commissioners, or by some other authorized body. An air line operates into an area. In the case of mining developments, a service may be required one year and not be required the next year. It would hardly be practical to require that bills be presented to parliament to establish air lines, particularly into remote areas.
Since 1918, when the Aeronautics Act was passed, it has been the function of the minister responsible for the administration of that act to allocate franchises. As a matter of practice the minister has functioned by obtaining orders in council. That practice was changed in 1938 by a bill which was presented under my sponsorship, and that authority was placed in the hands of the board of transport commissioners.
The difficulty is that the board of transport commissioners are in essence a judicial body. They have no staff to help them to form
[Mr. Stirling.J
policies. They were attempting to deal with airway problems in a purely legalistic way.* The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the pudding has not been in the interests of the development of our airways, at least in my humble opinion. This bill is an attempt to set up a strong advisory body t-o deal with policy matters, and also to act as a semi-judicial body for the final determination of matters that are judicial in character. We are adopting a form that has worked well in the country to the south of us, which country has seen the greatest development of airways of any country in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not in effect there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in effect there, if my hon. friend will not interrupt. We are following a pattern which has worked well on this continent. My hon. friend states that in the United Kingdom there is no board, that these matters are dealt with departmentally. I would remind him that the United Kingdom is a small area and that internal civil aviation there is not a problem of great magnitude. Canada is a country of tremendous distances, and it is thinly settled. After having struggled with this problem for some eight or nine years, I can assure my hon. friend that our problem is a huge one. Any minister administering the Aeronautics Act to-day needs expert advice; he needs the help of men who are able to concentrate on one problem, the development of airways.
The purpose of this bill is to set up that sort of support for the minister who will be responsible for the Aeronautics Act. I am satisfied that this is a constructive measure.
I believe it to be a measure that will make for the development of our airways, a measure that will make for a sound air policy to guide that development. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre. If his amendment were adopted, I believe there would be no course open to the government but to abandon the bill now before the committee.


George Russell Boucher: In so far as this air transport board being an advisory board is concerned, the fact is that they will have to rely upon the expert technicians in the department. All they will be doing will be to accept the advice that the minister would accept. Then in connection with the judicial part of their duty, as I said before recess it would seem that the hands of the commissioners are tied down. They cannot use their independent judicial judgment; they will be governed by the approval of the minister. They will be almost part and parcel of the

Aeronautics Act
Department of Transport because they must and should rely upon the officials of that department for the data upon which they would form their opinions.
The difficulty is that we are creating something that is neither fish nor fowl. This board can have neither an independent viewpoint nor independent judicial powers. This board will not have an independent technical staff to give advisory support to the minister concerned. As I say, we are simply building up an organization that is neither fish nor fowl, an organization which will have no function that it can exercise in the independent way we would like to see it exercised as far as judicial decisions are concerned.


Howard Charles Green: There are two questions I should like to ask the minister. First, who will be responsible once this bill becomes law for deciding what routes are to be flown? Under section 15 of the Transport Act of 1938, which is the governing statute at the present time, that decision is made by the governor in council. In the present bill I do not see any provision which sets out how those routes are to be decided upon, although I take it that that will be done by the minister on the advice of his new board. I would ask him to explain how these routes are to be chosen.
Then, once a route has been chosen, what will be the procedure to decide between A firm and B firm who are applying for a licence to fly that particular route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The routes will be assigned, as they are to-day, by order in council. That will be covered in the amendments to the Transport Act which will shortly be considered by the committee. The governor in council will decide the routes to be flown, with the advice of the air transport board. As to the question of who will fly the routes, that also will be decided by the minister upon the advice of the air transport board, in the form of a report from the board giving reasons for the selection.


Howard Charles Green: Should not that provision for deciding the routes be put in this bill rather than left in the Transport Act, because the board of transport commissioners, once bill No. 133 becomes law, will have no jurisdiction over the air. Surely that provision should be in the new bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The whole matter will be in the hands of the air transport board. The minister has the power: except for the period of delegation to the board of transport commissioners he has always had the power, and will continue to have it; that is, the governor in council will continue to have the power to decide the air routes.
100-311J
Mr. GREElN: Will it be the minister or the governor in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The governor in council.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: yeas, 15; nays, 43.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have an amendment to section 12, subsection 5, in the second line, which I will ask my colleague to move; namely, that the clause be amended by inserting the words "or the areas to be served1" after the word "followed". With that change the subsection will read:
(5) In issuing any licence the board shall prescribe the routes which may be followed or the areas to be served and may attach to the licence such conditions respecting schedules

And so forth.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I so move.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the cooperation of the minister and the chairman with respect to dealing with this particular section subclause by subclause, if we may. The minister has gone on to subsection 5; originally we were discussing subsection 1. I have noi objection, so long as we keep within some' sequence on it. That is the only reason I rose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend may recall that several subsections were read before the amendment was proposed. However, I have no objection; I think it is quite logical, to take this subsection by subsection.


John George Diefenbaker: In regard to section 12, subsection 2, which provides-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If I may be allowed, I believe it may be in order to pass this amendment and then to revert to subsection 2 of. section 12. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	1
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are now on section 12, subsection 2,-"Not to be issued to persons engaged in other than aircraft transport."	[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: This subsection provides that no licence shall be issued to any person engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that ity is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
Originally the position taken by the mini's^ ter was that railway companies would be required within one year after the end of hostilities to divest themselves of any interest in the operation of aircraft companies. Since the original announcement was made, there has apparently been some change of attitude
Aeronautics Act


Mr. SLAGHT:: What is the date of that?


John George Diefenbaker: April 3, 1944. Following his return from the old country, Mr. Wilson, who is known for his acute observations, made that statement. Realizing that it is to be a matter of government policy that

there is to be a separation-at least that was the policy when first announced-unless the governor in council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that licences should be granted to transportation companies, I should like to find out why the alteration in the minister's attitude and whether or not it was due in any way to conversations, exploratory or otherwise, which the * minister had with Lord Beaverbrook. Separation is now a matter of government policy, and all I wish to do is to ascertain from the minister why he has receded so far from the stand that he so valiantly took a matter of two months ago, and which to-day has been softened down and retreated from to such an extent that the governor in council now enjoys the right to do that which the minister stated would not and could not be done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government's policy was stated very clearly in this house and there has been no change whatever in it. The wording of this section is parallel with the wording of a similar section in the aeronautics act of the United States, and the same latitude is given there as is given here. The reason why that latitude is given is that there may 'be borderline cases where a strict interpretation of the rule with regard to government policy would defeat a desirable project. An example was given in this house by hon. members opposite of the case of Consolidated Mining and Smelting. The question was asked whether that company could be permitted to operate an airline under this act. Consolidated Mining and Smelting was a pioneer in air transport. Its operations are such that air transport may be a logical part of them, and this act gives the board power to determine whether an operation on the part of that company would be in the public interest, regardless of the fact that control of Consolidated Mining and Smelting probably rests with a railway company. That latitude is necessary in order to carry out the spirit of the act, 'but it involves no change whatever in government policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I feel that the minister
used some sense in what he said just now with regard to the necessity of some latitude in this clause. Nevertheless I believe that the hon. member for Lake Centre is right at this point in asking the minister for a more definitive statement of government policy at this time. I say that for this reason-if I may refer again to the statement which the minister made on March 17-that he said without qualification:
Steps will be taken to require our railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines,

Aeronautics Act
to the end that, within a period of one year from the ending of the European war, transport by air will be entirely separate from surface transportation.
The words in that statement to which I would call attention are these, " within a period of one year from the ending of the European war." I would1 accept this latitude which the minister has put in subclause 2 for the reason he has given, but at the same time there should be some interpretation somewhere in the bill of that statement which he made on March 17, that this definite step would be taken within a year after the ending of the war. I wonder if that part of the policy announced on March 17, to the effect that this change will be made within a year after the end of the war, stands.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There is a slight misprint in the bill which I intend to correct when we come to it, but my hon. friend will see that section 14 is mandatory.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to be as strict with shipping companies as with railway companies? Take a shipping company with ships plying up the Pacific coast of Canada. It might wish to open an air route in connection with its shipping service, which would be very useful. Is it the intention absolutely to prohibit companies of that kind from operating air routes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Shipping companies will be
treated extactly the same as railways or other surface transportation.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Will
bus companies be treated1 similarly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They will not- be allowed to extend their service into the air?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That depends on the question of public interest. There has been as yet no serious study of the relation between bus companies and air transportation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister think that the government company we now have operating air lines will have proper competition unless he allows the bus companies to step in?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, they should have competition, because the outfit we have now, T.CA., although it is good, is always late in its schedules owing to the absence of competition. At least I imagine that is the reason. There certainly should be competition.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The minister has over and over again reiterated the point that he has divorced all surface carriers, from air carriers because it was the practice in the United States to do so and because that was found to be satisfactory. What is the other evidence that it is advisable that surface carriers and air carriers should be divorced? Do we know enough yet about air transportation to say that it is a good thing or a bad thing for surface carriers and air carriers to be separated, whether they be surface carriers, water surface carriers, bus surface carriers or rail surface carriers? If there is evidence I should like to know it. The minister has always said that the United States had that policy and that it proved a very satisfactory one. I do not accept that. While it may be satisfactory to the United States, are we sure that we can follow in toto their programme? We have a much more sparsely settled country, and a country which in many ways has an economy which is quite different from that of the United States. Would the minister enlarge on the United States policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is quite wrong in stating that the reason for adopting this policy in Canada is that it was adopted in the United States. I mentioned that the experience in the United States had been similar to the experience in Canada. The need for divorcing the two has arisen out of our experience in Canada. The decision to be made therefore is, as I have said before, whether we shall have a monopoly of the air ways in the hands of the railways. The railways are naturally interested in developing transportation by rail. The question is, with complete monopolistic control of the air, would they be equally interested in developing our airways? Another question is whether we should turn over the empire of the air to those who control the empire of surface transportation? We must recall that pioneering of the airways has been performed by small operators. The railways never have been pioneers of the air. The small operator, serving a territory with area within his capacity to serve, has proved to be a very satisfactory means of developing air transportation. In my opinion, this small operator should have a chance in the air, and steps should be taken to see that our airways do not drift into monopolistic control; that is a matter of convenience to the public rather than benefit to any interest.
I believe that the public is better served by the small operator whose well-being depends on giving good service to his area. That is the purpose behind the bill; it is a purpose that
Aeronautics Act

experience has dictated to be sound policy, and that is the reason why this provision is in the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wish to continue this same line of argument, Mr. Chairman, and it will not take more than a minute or two. The minister has said that he does not want to give a monopoly to the railways. I am in complete accord with him on that because, as I tried to point out when I spoke on this bill before, it has been the old bush pilots, the small operator, the fellow who had two or three aircraft who built up Canadian aviation. The big transcontinental operators come later. Because we do not want to give the railways ,-a monopoly, is it necessary to divorce the railways from the long haul aircraft business? Surely traffic whether by air, sea or rail will flow to the most efficient and cheapest method. It seems to me that in the long haul transportation, the transcontinental field, the railways are singularly equipped to dove-tail their [DOT]operations in with the operations in the air; whereas the company that does nothing but -fly aircraft into the north country, where there is no other method of transportation, does not and cannot fear competition by the major companies, because the small company can always beat the big company due to its flexibility.
I think this bill is based on the wrong premise. The small company with a few aircraft and low overhead can give service to an outlying mine or an outlying community, or they can start a service to a new mining area or a new agricultural area. Once that is established and heavy traffic moves in, it becomes the duty of the railways to go in and haul that heavy traffic. But at the present time, because of the peculiarity of our great as yet untapped resources, the bill says that we will divorce the railway companies from all air transportation. I say that there is room for both of those operators, room for the railway operators operating on the main trunk lines, and I think they can be dove-tailed quite efficiently into railway operations; but the small feeder lines that perhaps have no accurate schedule-and remember we gained first place in the world in air freight by these small companies-will not be injured by the railways. The railways will never be able to compete with these small companies because the small companies will provide a flexibility of service with which the railways could never compete. They will be able to take you in whether you arrive at eleven o'clock or at any time, whether you want to take in a boiler or a piece of machinery. They will take you in and let you off anywhere. They are like a taxi service;
.[Mr. Howe.3
they will take you anywhere you want to go. No railway company is going to be interested in that type of service; but that small company is not going to be interested in and could never be interested in the major transcontinental or heavy traffic air arteries. I have never yet had it explained to me why the railways should be divorced from the major traffic arteries of this continent. I know they have done it in the United States and have made a success of it. Because they have done it is no reason why we should do it. The minister has not explained why it is good policy for us to follow completely the United States practice. The bush pilot, the small individual operator, is, I grant, the main operator. We have to look after him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is he to-day?
Mr. ADAMSON; He is the man who built Canadian aviation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Name two or three.
Mr. AD "'!CC::. TU.	' '	

because they have been put out of business by the failure of the mining industry. I tried to talk about the mining industry at some length in the committee a while ago. The Canadian Pacific took certain of them over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Took them all.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No, it did not. It took over the northwest staging route, route to Alaska, the Ginger Coote Airways in Vancouver island, all in the Patricia mining area. In the great gold mining belt of northern Ontario there are no aircraft running, "no birds sing", as the poet said. That is where the railways can never compete with private enterprise. I do not see that allowing the railways into the transcontinental aviation business is going to hurt in any way the small operator. It is to the small operator that we must look for the development of aviation in Canada; and whether he is a small operator hauling week-end traffic in Ontario, or whether he is a small operator who operates out of northern lakes hauling mining machinery for engineers and prospectors in the mines does not matter; the small operator is the man who is going to build up Canadian aviation, because his is and will continue to be a more flexible operation than that of any great transportation system. He is the man who is going to give employment to air and groundcrew. He is going to employ the aircrew who are to-day bombing Germany. The big operators, the transcontinental lines, are going to employ only three or four hundred of these men, at the most. It is the small operator, the man with initiative, who will provide employment for the others. I believe that we must rely on him.

Aeronautics Act
However, I do not feel that if we allow the railway companies to enter the transcontinental field we are in any way jeopardizing the future of the small feeder transport company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish that my hon. friend would suggest how a small operator would start in the north country to-day. All the area is preempted by the railway companies, as far as I know. The hon. gentleman says there are no operations into northern Ontario. I could point to the very considerable number of planes operating out of Hudson, for example.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, into Norway House in the Patricia district; but there is nothing operating-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend were a small operator, would he care to serve any of that territory to-day in competition with the railways?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, I would operate such an air line to-day-and I am sure I could find the money-if the taxation policy on mining and prospecting operations were revised. I am quite certain that you would find small companies operating out of the great gold camps, such as Porcupine, Kirkland Lake, Noranda, Patricia, Matachewan, Flin Flon, Yellowknife, and so on. I am quite sure you would find an air service from Toronto serving the mines-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend applied for a licence to-day he would find a railway application filed alongside his. The matter would come before the board of transport commissioners, who would have the option of giving it to a company with a few hundred million dollars of capital or to my hon. friend, with the money he would raise. What does the hon. gentleman think the board would decide to do, under the present legislation?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not see why they should not decide to have competition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was competition that
wrecked all the small operations in the north and allowed them to pass into the hands of the railways.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was not competition but the destruction of the prospecting business that ruined the air transportation business. The line from Rouyn to Montreal had, at one time, more passengers than it could carry.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: But the Canadian Pacific took that over, did they not?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The C.P.R. did not kill it. The air line would get you to Montreal in two hours, while on the C.P.R. it was an *overnight trip. Even the hon. member for
Parry Sound would agree that it was better to get into Montreal in the evening than in the morning.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: But when the C.P.R. took it over that was the end of it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The C.P.R. did not take it over. If my hon. friend would spend as much time as he should in the north country I think he would realize what happened to the bush pilots and how they have been forced out.


Mr. McNEVIN:: I want to offer the minister my full support in this proposal to set up an aeronautics board to control civil aviation and grant licences for any additional interurban or intermunicipal air lines. There is a distinct similarity between the provisions of this measure and those in effect in Ontario, and perhaps other provinces as well, in regard to the granting of franchises for the operation of bus lines. The net result has been to eliminate vicious and destructive competition in the - operation of the bus transport system throughout this province. In addition, if the surface transportation companies were granted these licences freely we would build up in Canada one of the greatest transportation monopolies in the world. If these franchises or licences for the operation of air lines had been granted freely, by the time the war is over the whole system would have been bottled up by the great and powerful transportation companies. We should keep these franchises free and untrammeled for the gallant personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force who are now bearing the burden of this country's air war. We must give these brilliant and capable young men a chance to get into this business, not only as employees but in control of both the financing and operation of many of these important services. I only hope the minister and the administration will hold to this sound policy.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On subsection 5-Routes and conditions.
Grote Stirling: I am not clear as to the minister's reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South with regard to designating the routes. I understood the minister to say that it will remain the duty of the governor in council to prescribe aerial routes, and I also understood him to say that this authority would be found in the Transport Act. Is that the case? This bill takes part III out of the Transport Act entirely, and the only reference I can find is in the Aeronautics Act of 1938.
Aeronautics Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true.


Grote Stirling: There power is given, to the minister, not the governor in council, to prescribe aerial routes, under section 3(f).


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Is that the way it is to remain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. My hon. friend is quite right; the provision is in the Aeronautics Act, and has always been there. It is true that the Aeronautics Act gives the power to the minister, but it has been the practice, at least during my term of office, that the route is actually determined by order in council on the recommendation of the minister.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Here again the route is definitely prescribed, as I gather from the section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will recall that it was amended by adding the words "or the area".
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 6-Licence to T.C.A.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this subsection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act the Postmaster General and the Minister of Transport jointly recommend to the government a route for T.CA. The question of jurisdiction has arisen in the past, as to whether the order in council passed by the government assigning a route to T.C.A. was a final designation. In the case of the extension of the T.C.A. from Vancouver to Victoria the board ruled that in spite of the designation by the government the operation of the route was subject to the regulations of the board of transport commissioners, and as my hon, friend will recall, the board ruled that the line could not carry local traffic between Vancouver and Victoria. The purpose of this section is to make it quite clear that the designation of a route by order in council under the T.C.A. act is a final designation and is not subject to review.


Howard Charles Green: And the issue of the licence becomes automatic?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 7-Different licence may be issued.
Howard Charles Green: Is this a new provision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is simply a clarification. The present practice is either to accept or to
'Mr. Stirling.]
reject a licence. This gives the board power to modify a licence. The board may accept, or may modify, a licence and issue it accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 8-Appeal to the minister.
Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Under the existing law, appeals lie to the governor in council, in respect of discretionary matters. What is the reason for the change as set out in this subsection? The transportation committee of the Calgary board of trade have been giving this matter careful study, and they seem to think that this change is extremely dangerous and objectionable. They believe it is extremely dangerous to have appeals of this kind decided by the minister alone. They feel such appeals should go to the governor in council, as the law at present provides. They are conscious of the fact that in nearly all cases appeals to the minister would probably be satisfactory, but they also point out that in the odd case there might be hardships. For that reason they would like to see this clause stand as it stood originally, namely with appeals to the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Why would there be hardship?


George Henry Ross: Is it correct to assume that very few if any appeals were made in the past? If I am correct in assuming that, then I cannot see that the governor in council has been crowded with appeals, or that any undue burden has been imposed upon it. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Aeronautics Act the practice is that the minister is designated as the recipient of such authority. As I said earlier, it has been that way since the act was first passed in 1918. Under licensing, a great many appeals occur. It is true that under the Transport Act appeals are addressed to the governor in council. The practice is to gather together a committee of council and formally to hear the appellants. Considerable delay is involved in that procedure, usually a matter of months, before council could deal with an appeal. Appeals are very infrequent, The history of appeals to the governor in council is that, during the lifetime of the board of transport commissioners, none has been granted. When action is taken, it has always been confined to referring back to the board for further study.
There are likely to be a great many appeals in connection with the issuing of licences. A man has his licence cancelled, and he imme-

Aeronautics Act
diately wishes to appeal. I think it would just delay matters to carry such appeals to the governor in council. I believe an appeal to the minister, who is in touch with the situation, and who, if necessary, can consult council, is the more expeditious manner of handling the matter. The minister had sole authority up to 1938, and the minister is designated in this bill as the court of appeal, for the reason that it is felt that in connection with air transport matters the minister can handle appeals much more expeditiously and more satisfactorily for the appellant than could the governor in council.


George Henry Ross: Section 52 of the Railway Act deals with appeals. If the minister will refer to it he will see that those appeals lie, not with the minister, but with the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the Railway Act?


George Henry Ross: Yes, and these appeals were taken under the provisions of that act. It governs appeals of this kind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, since 1938.


George Henry Ross: Have there been many appeals since 1938?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Henry Ross: Have there been any?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: One appeal dismissed.


George Henry Ross: Is there any reason why the minister c* uld not let this stand? If there has been oi ly one appeal in so many years, would the mi Lister consent to this subsection being changed so that appeals would be taken to the govern, r in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I believed that in practice an appeal to the governor in council would be more satisfactory than an appeal to the minister, I would certainly change the subsection. I am convinced, however, that the satisfactory method of handling appeals is to the minister.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a widespread demand that this change be made. I move in amendment thereto:
That subsection 8 of section 12 of Bill No. 133 be amended by substituting for the word "minister" therein the words "governor in council".
After all, there is a principle at stake here. In subsection 1 of section 12 the minister is given very wide powers. No licence can be issued without his approval. There is no point in having an appeal to the minister. In my opinion that is not sound. It might work out with the present minister-although I am not so sure it would; but certainly it is not sound in principle.
These boards of trade are right when they say that an appeal should be to the governor in council. It would mean that the whole cabinet must share the responsibility. Of course it would be an appeal only where an application had been refused. I urge that the minister agree to accept this change. Let the appeal be made to the governor in council.
The last time the bill was before the committee for discussion the minister took an arbitrary stand, and made some rather slighting remarks about boards of trade across Canada. I had read a telegram from the board of trade of Vancouver. They have now issued another statement, as a result of what the minister said. This is what they say:
The telegram outlines in full the position our board has taken and will continue to take in regard to matters in which such an important principle is at stake, particularly in the instance of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which involves one of the most important and far-reaching industries in Canada.
It does not look right for the minister, who is piloting this bill through the house, to insist that there be no appeal to anyone but himself. I suggest that my amendment should be accepted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has carefully considered whether appeals should lie with the governor in council or with the minister,
. and has decided that they should lie with the minister. I have heard nothing in the discussion which would indicate that the amendment now proposed is in the interests of sound administration, and I would ask hon. members to oppose the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,
before the vote is taken I desire to join with the hon. member for Vancouver South in support of the amendment proposed by him. All the way along in this bill we are departs ing from parliamentary principles. Aviation will be one of the largest post-war developments and it is to be placed almost entirely under the minister. The hon. member for Calgary East pointed out that under the Transport Act the appeal was to the governor in council. There is an appeal in name, provided for in this bill, but not an appeal in fact. Section 12, subsection 1, reads:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
Subsection 4 reads:
The hoard shall not issue any such licence unless and until an operating certificate has been issued by the minister to the operator.
And subsection 8 reads:
Where the board refuses to issue a licence,-

Aeronautics Act

Which would have to be done at the request of the minister.
*-issues a licence which differs from the licence applied for,-
The minister is the one whose approval must be secured before the board can grant a licence.
-or attaches conditions to which the applicant objects.
Again a licence issued with conditions can be issued only with the approval of the minister. A licence is applied for. It may be issued as applied for or differing from the application, but it can be issued only with the approval of the minister. When a person is dissatisfied with the licence issued or the refusal to issue a licence, his appeal is to the person who originally determined that the applicant could not have a licence or could have a licence only with qualifications. It is not a case of an appeal from the hired man to the hired man's boss; it is an appeal to the person who made the order, to the person who directed the issue of the licence.
The acceptance of that principle would mean in effect the denial of the right of the individual. It places the minister in a position where he would control every person in this country in so far as that person's right to have a licence is concerned. If a case is brought up in the house will an hon. member be able to ascertain why the licence was turned down? Will the minister hide behind his board and say that the board made the decision and that, generally speaking, that decision was accepted by the minister, and beyond that would information be denied? To accept this section without the amendment suggested originally by the hon. member for Calgary East will mean in my opinion that parliament will have no right to investigate, to ascertain the reasons, if there be any, for any arbitrary order that has been made and the order will stand and will not be subject to investigation in parliament.
I ask the support of hon. members on all sides of the chamber for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Why should not the governor in council have the right to determine the question of appeal? What will actually happen will be this: a decision, arbitrary though it may be, once made against an applicant will be final and he will be denied any recourse, or right of appeal. All that is provided for will be a semblance of an appeal whereby the decision will be made behind his back on evidence which will not be made available to him and which had been gathered together by persons he does not know anything about. [Mr. Diefenbaker.J
Within the last two weeks in the House of Commons in Great Britain the Right Hon. Mr. Morrison on behalf of the government agreed that the time had come when the perpetuation of the making of arbitrary regulations should be controlled or, in any event, be made subject to review by parliament, and agreed that a committee be set up composed of members from all sides of the house to review orders made by bureaucrats often hidden behind' closed doors and cloaked in anonymity.
I support this amendment because it will bring to the light of day within cabinet council any arbitrary act or any unfairness or any denial of justice. It is not so much that there may 'be injustice, and some of the provisions of this bill certainly permit of injustice being perpetuated, but whether there is or not, it is important that persons affected should believe that they are receiving justice. If an order is made against them few will believe that they are receiving justice when denied the right of an appeal to some person who did not make the order complained of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to add a word on this point. If the minister had been in his place on Thursday evening last or if he has perused Hansard he will know that on that occasion I made an appeal to the Minister of National Revenue against the present law relating to appeals from income tax assessments. Under the law as at present the appeal is from Caesar to Caesar. I elaborated at considerable length against that as a non-British practice. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance admitted at once that it was an empty gesture and a waste of time. Upon my pressing the Minister of National Revenue and arguing that the principle was bad, he would not admit it, but he intimated that the department would consider setting up an advisory committee. That does not meet the situation because the appe I will still be to the same jurisdiction. The very fact that the Department of National Revenue is admitting in effect


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member cannot refer to a debate that is already closed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
referring to it merely by way of illustration;
I am not criticizing it or anything. I am trying to work up an argument if I have the intelligence to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You 'are having a hard time doing it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I am not having a very hard time doing it; I never have a very difficult time.

Aeronautics Act
495*


William Henry Golding: Citation 293 of standing order 41 states that it is not in order to refer to any debate of the same session on any question that is not under discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not referring to it; I was merely trying to elaborate a principle with respect to an appeal. In that instance the colleague of the Minister of Munitions and Supply in effect assented to the principle for which I was striving. I desire to apply that principle to this bill. That very axiom admits, I think, the injustice of the position taken by the ministry. I beg of the minister to heed the advice and the arguments which are being made with respect to the position that arises by reason of the provisions of this bill. There cannot be a true appeal if the jurisdiction is still confined to the same authority, and that in effect is what exists here to-day. So that I suggest to the minister that, as a matter of common justice to the citizenship of this country, he should give effect to a first and elementary principle of British justice, that an appeal should not be taken from an authority to the same authority. That in effect is what we have here, and it is a violation of an elementary principle of British justice. The minister has control from the beginning to the end, and there is no further opportunity for a citizen or group of citizens who feel aggrieved to get it out of the atmosphere of an administration which has seized jurisdiction and holds on to it like grim death.
I am serious about this. I think the principle involved is absolutely wrong. I should have thought the minister would be glad, once a decision is rendered, to have an appeal vested in a judicial authority which would view the matter dispassionately on its merits and with a view of doing justice as between the subject and the crown, because after all that ought to be one of the fundamental principles of government. With respect, there is a denial of justice here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a privy councillor. I suppose he has sat on committees of the privy council that have considered appeals from the board of transport commissioners.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall any.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably they were pending at that time: they "pend" for two or three years and then are considered. Perhaps one dad' not come up in my hon. friend's session. But the purpose of this bill is to set up a workable procedure, and I assure my hon.
friend that a workable procedure does not involve an appeal to the privy council, because that just is not a workable procedure. As I have said, since the Transport Act was drawn no appeal to the privy council has succeeded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have been made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Many have been made; and the farthest that the privy council has ever gone toward reversing a decision is to send the finding back to the board' of transport commissioners for a rehearing, with a view to further evidence being made available.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does my 'hon. friend mean the privy council or the governor in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a reason for that, and the reason is that the board of transport commissioners is a judicial body exercising judicial functions. This is not a judicial body.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a ministerial body.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I a.n read the English language.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read the English language he will find that on every object except one the finding of this board is a decision subject only to an appeal to the minister.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The way this is set up it is just like a youngster at school being reprimanded by the teacher and then having to appeal to the teacher.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be my hon. friend's view.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think it is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we have a few grown-up people studying the bill we may get different views.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very improper observation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not think the minister has any call to say anything of the sort. He is too dictatorial.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Too impatient.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister should give our representations a little attention. I am going to vote for this
Aeronautics Act

amendment, and I believe the minister will be well advised to consider it carefully. The Minister of National Revenue, with respect to income tax, has a board set up for the purpose of appeals, but he does not sit on that board. If the governor in council looks after this matter it will not be the affair of just one man; it will be the cabinet itself. That is the way it should be, and that is why I am going to vote for the amendment.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Listening to the argument advanced by our good friends on the other side-


Howard Charles Green: And the hon. member for Calgary East.


Vincent Dupuis: -I recall vividly the days
gone by. The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Lake Centre, in particular, give the signal of so many storms in this house. I say that listening to these .gentlemen, and also and especially to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I recall vividly the days gone by, when we were sitting in their places-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You will be there again too, in smaller numbers.


Vincent Dupuis: -and they were sitting here. My good friend the ex-leader of the opposition was at that time a minister of the crown in the Bennett government, and in those days legislation was brought down and submitted to this house which contained powers much more arbitrary than those under discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Name one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The marketing board.


Vincent Dupuis: I will name so many that cny hon. friends will be astonished.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Name them.


Vincent Dupuis: It is not a reproach I want to make. I just want to come to this, and I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury will admit what I am going to say. I remember special legislation which was brought down by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Cahan, in which arbitrary power was vested in himself as a minister of the crown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What bill [DOT]was that?


Vincent Dupuis: Being then a young member and having less experience than I have to-day, I took the position which has been taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South-
(Mr. G. K. Fraser.]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What bill was that?


Vincent Dupuis: -and the hon. member for Lake Centre. I remember hearing the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, whom everybody will admit was a great parliamentarian, giving us members a lesson.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A lecture, not a lesson.


Vincent Dupuis: A lecture.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He could give you a lesson too. The trouble is you were too obtuse to learn from him.


Vincent Dupuis: I would go so far as to say that he gave us a lesson. He gave reasons why a minister of the crown should have this delegation of power to himself, and I should like hon. members on the other side to read the remarks made at that time.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Name the bill.


Vincent Dupuis: I have mentioned that legislation brought in by Mr. Cahan.


Grote Stirling: What was the legislation, so that we can look it up?


Vincent Dupuis: It was in 1934.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Never
mind "order". The hon. member is referring to a certain bill. We want to know what it is.


Vincent Dupuis: I know the hon. member is intelligent enough to-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We cannot read your
mind; no one else could, either.


Vincent Dupuis: -understand that there is no choice. All this legislation which was brought down by the Bennett government was a hundred times worse in this respect than the matter now under discussion. On the legislation submitted by Mr. Cahan the right hon. gentleman gave a very clear argument in favour of delegating such power to the minister. In this subsection which we are now studying and in connection with which the member for Vancouver South has proposed an amendment, the minister has the power to decide in the last resort-


An hon. MEMBER:: Everything.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, but the hon. member must remember that the minister is a member of the privy council. He knows perfectly well, and so does the hon. member for York-Sunbury, that this is so. I am sure the hon. member for York-Sunbury, when he was a

Aeronautics Act
member of the round-table, would not be able in those days to pass any legislation which he wished to pass even as a minister unless it had been agreed to by the big boss, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. He would not allow anything to pass unless it had been first submitted to him at the council table, and I do not need to be a prophet to know that every time legislation such as we have before us to-night, brought down by the minister of munitions, is introduced, it has been submitted to the cabinet beforehand, and anything that will be decided in accordance with the subsection which is now before us will be decided in the privy council before the final decision of the minister is made. The hon. member for York-Sunbury is a learned lawyer and he knows that very well, so that I think I may quite appropriately repeat the words of Shakespeare, "Much ado about nothing."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. gentleman has made certain statements with respect to legislation submitted in his day by Mr. Cahan as Secretary of State, and he states that that legislation had even more power than this, or at any rate similar power. So far as most members are concerned, he is talking in riddles. He ought to specify the legislation to which he is referring.


Vincent Dupuis: All the legislation brought down by the Bennett government.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If he is saying that all the legislation passed in those years was of that kind, my hon. friend is talking through his hat. Let him be specific. If he knows of such legislation let him tell us what it is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The marketing act.	[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is entirely different.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is nothing in the marketing act comparable with this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ten times worse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The major piece of legislation introduced by the former Secretary of State was with regard to amendments to the Companies' Act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Vincent Dupuis: And the marketing act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was not brought in by Mr. Cahan at all. The hon. gentleman's memory is bad; he is drawing on his imagination. I am wondering what he rose for anyway, because he has not added to the sum total of the knowledge we have to-night.


John George Diefenbaker: As I listened to the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), I was reminded of the lawyer who, when faced with authorities on the other side, contradicted them, and when the judge asked him that his authority was, answered, "Well, my lord, we can find it somewhere in the books." That is the attitude taken by the hon. gentleman.
There is a question I would ask the minister having regard to the authority which he will have under this subsection and under the other sections if not amended. How soon does the government intend to set up the air transport board? Will the minister permit the board to hear applications for licences before the end of the war? Under this section, if the board were to refuse to issue a licence prior to the end of hostilities, what attitude would the minister take in the matter as a question of policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board will be appointed as quickly as can be arranged, after the act becomes law, and will proceed immediately to receive applications for franchises. Franchises will be granted as soon as the board can be convinced that suitable equipment can be1 made available to operators. There is no1 civilian equipment being manufactured at this-time available to any air line operator, either here or in the United States. In the United States a few aeroplanes that were taken from air lines in the early days of the war are being returned to those lines, but no new equipment has been sold to any air line, to my knowledge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The proposals are in the dim and distant future, depending on when the war will end and the-facilities that are available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.
!Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):	So that
there is no necessity for this act at this session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not think so if you cannot get ahything to fly with.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend seems to think that applications for airlines are determined by drawing them out of a hat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no:


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure him that studies-must be made before a route can be designated, or before it can be assigned. Those studies are comprehensive. Applications in the
Aeronautics Act

United States usually take at least twelve months to pass through the mill. In Canada, if proper consideration is given, it must be a matter of months to determine whether or not an application should be granted. That is, assuming that we plan to give all air operators a reasonable chance to offer their wares when making an application. That work will be put in hand at once, and operations will commence as soon as the board can be convinced that the equipment and personnel situation is such as to warrant the commencing of operations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, applications will be received from everybody but the railways and the surface transmission lines. The minister some weeks ago made the statement that he knew of no jurisdiction in the world which was allowing railway and steamship companies to operate air transportation,
r Mr. HOWE: I did not say that.
"Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): Is he aware >of the situation in England and is he willing to retract that statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made no such statement. I said there were certain interior lines in England in which there is a railway interest, not Tull ownership but a majority interest. I gave that as an example and said I was not aware of a similar situation in any other country'.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister must have made the statement on another occasion because I was struck by it, and more forcibly' struck by the statement that was published almost immediately afterwards that surface carriers, including steamships, control all lines in Britain and that none were national and none owned or controlled by the government. Of course, it goes to show-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend ever heard of British Overseas Airways?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I have seen them and travelled with some of their pilots. That is international, but that is not what I am driving at. We are dealing here with air communications in the country. That is what this bill will be for. So that the situation is not what the minister represented it to foe, as I recall what he said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read the debate in full he will find that it was said that the railways in Britain have an interest in the ownership of internal air lines, and the names of the air lines were mentioned in the debate.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rather think that perhaps the government, in spite of the fact that they are threatened seriously, not only by the
(Mr. Howe.]
opposition but by the hon. gentlemen to my left, are trying to swallow the platform of the hon. gentlemen to my left and take full control of any chance that private enterprise may have so far as air lines are concerned. I think back to 1921 and 1922 in the province of Ontario when we had very little control over bus and truck transport, and not as much control over the registration and regulation of private automobiles as we have to-day. I sat on a committee of the Ontario legislature. We spent many months drawing up an entirely new highway traffic act which has been changed very little since that time. We then set up regulations for buses, for private traffic lines, and prepared to give franchises to the bus lines operating on various highways in Ontario. Toward the conclusion of our meetings I suggested that perhaps it might be well if we asked the railways to come in and give us the benefit of any surveys that they might have made of bus and truck traffic. We did approach the railways and they said they had nothing to submit. So far as passengers were concerned the bus traffic was not a particular menace to them at that time, but we see what has happened since. When the buses really became a heavy carrying traffic organization in the province the railways came into the picture and asked for franchises to operate either in competition with existing lines or exclusive lines on certain highways in the province. Those have been granted, and we find that to-day we have built up in Ontario one of the finest systems of bus, truck and railway transportation of any province of the Dominion of Canada. They are doing it in competition with each other; they are doing it in such a way that those who travel by or ship by any one of those means of transportation are getting the very highest type of service. While it is regulated by the government the franchises are not subject to some particular ministerial approval.
I think what we have to watch in this whole picture is that those people who have spent millions of dollars in developing the bus and truck transportation business in this country are not going to be stymied by being subjected to the approval of some particular minister, whether he be the present Minister of Transport or our minister of transport when the election is over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are getting funny.	[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is nothing funny about that. You will be inside the tiger. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. I am very serious about this. The bus companies that are able to serve certain districts and realize that they

Aeronautics Act
cannot extend that bus service to outlying districts have spent many thousands of dollars on the development of helicopter service to those particular districts so that they may bring those people into common centres and on to some direct air line, because we are not going to have an air base in every town and city in this country; the thing is impracticable; it is impossible to do. But we can have a central air field where people will come in by feeders, from bus and helicopter service to supply those particular air lines. These things must be worked out, not in competition with each other but in cooperation with each other. Certainly we are not going to be able to do it under this bill. Many of the large bus companies have to-day invested a great deal of money in their business. They are doing a real service to the people of this country. They have been planning for this future development when the war is over, when they can get equipment and supply the helicopter service from one point to another until finally they feed the central point.
This bill puts them in a position where everything. is predicated entirely on whether or not the Minister of Transport is willing to let them do it and willing to have them. We are gradually working toward a position in this house where we believe in private enterprise-at least we think we do; we in this group do anyway. We do believe in private enterprise-and the freedom of opportunity, as suggested by my hon. friend-and on the other side of the house they have been so accustomed to regimentation during the past four years, order in council government and the rest of it, that they are trying to out-C.C.F. the C.C.F.ers and bring this whole thing under one control so that private enterprise has no opportunity at all.
Surely hon. members of this committee, not hon. members of this party only, whose ridings are served by private enterprise, whose ridings are served by those people who have invested millions of dollars in truck, passenger and transport service, are not going to sit here and see the whole thing menaced by placing it under the control of any one man whose rule is final and whose judgment may be perhaps, unfortunately, measured by some political expediency. I think what we have to do is to see to it that political expediency does not enter into the post-war period of this country. No cabinet minister should have the power to say "yes" or "no" to something that means so much in the future development of Canada. I am speaking particularly of Ontario and Quebec that have gone far ahead of other provinces in their development of truck and transportation business and that are spending large sums of money on research
work, and are trying to build up for the future of this country and the impetus that is going to be given business by immigration and so on, transportation systems that will look after the post-war period. For that reason I think every hon. member who is served by any of those companies, regardless of where he is situated or to what political party he belongs in this house, should see to it that this power is not given to the minister, and that the amendment moved by my hon. friend is carried.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out to my hon. friend that he has chosen a very interesting example in discussing the development of truck and bus franchises in Ontario. That development has been guided by a board, very similar in form to the proposed air transport board, and the authority in that case is exactly the same as the authority in this case.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is an appeal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An appeal to whom?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: My hon. friend knows there is an appeal.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Did I understand) from the minister that no discussions have been held with bus companies in the preliminary study of these matters? I believe that discussions have been held with the railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I remember correctly, one
or two applications have been filed by bus companies for helicopter routes. May I explain to my hon. friend that a helicopter route is not a practical matter at the present time. The helicopter has yet to be invented, in a practical form, for running any route. Possibly in ten years there will be practical helicopters and at that time routes of that kind will become important, but at the moment any government would be betraying its trust if it assigned helicopter routes to any bus companies. So far as I know, no bus company has ever applied for an aeroplane route.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I made no reference at all to helicopter service, but I understood the minister to say that there had been no discussions with bus companies in connection with any general scheme. I wanted to know why other surface transportation companies had been conferred with, while large bus companies had not been called into consultation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the consultation has been about equal with all forms of surface
transportation.
Aeronautics Act


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Have not many objections reached the minister to subsection 8 of this bill? Have not protests come from all parts of the country that this gave too much authority to any single individual? Would the minister answer that question? I am informed that many protests have been sent in. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there have been very few. As a matter of fact I have had more protests in connection with much less important matters than I have had in this connection. There have been perhaps fifteen or twenty letters.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The contention of the Gray Line bus company was that the helicopter was a definitely practical possibility in almost the immediate post-war period, for short hauls.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend know where to buy one?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand the Stinson company are making them at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Stinson company.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the minister indicate why provision should be made at all for an appeal from a board of three to a single individual? Why not leave it with the board and let its decision be final? The hon. member for York-Sunbury drew an analogy which to my mind was compelling, in connection with the operation of the Income War Tax Act. I know of nothing that causes the taxpayer so much dissatisfaction as to find that when he launches his notice of appeal it goes to the commissioner, who gives his decision; then when the appeal is filed it goes directly to the same source. The only justification I have been given for that course of conduct-and' I raised this question before I was ever a member of this house-was explained to me in this way. The officers of the department admitted that it was in effect an appeal to the very man who had rendered the decision in the first place, but to their way of thinking it was justified in that the matter came back to the same man, who was required thereby to give more particular attention to it than had been given in the first instance. Of course that was tantamount to admitting that it had not received the attention it deserved in the first place. At that time I was told that by far the greater proportion of those who served notice of dissatisfaction and then pursued their contention to the extent of serving notice of appeal had their grievances dealt with by

negotiation. They actually sat down at a table with the interested parties and got down to the merits of the thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They had to put up 1400 as security for costs, too.


Manley Justin Edwards: That is true. Personally I do not like the theory or the principle enunciated in this bill. I would feel much safer, and would consider that I could justify the position, if the decision of the board in the first instance were made final, with no appeal, rather than to have an appeal to the minister from this board of three men, who have exercised their best judgment. Why should there be an appeal to one man from a board of three? I would much prefer it left with the board. In connection with the question asked from the other side of the house a short time ago, I might add that to-day I received three communications protesting against this principle.


Clarence Gillis: Evidently there is going to be a vote on this clause, so that I should like to make my position clear. From the discussion that has been carried on to-night it seems to me my hon. friends to my right are very anxious to get the wedge of free enterprise into this bill. I agree with the minister; I think from the start he has taken the proper attitude, in that this very important industry is going to be managed and controlled by the government, and properly so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not owned.


Clarence Gillis: He will come to that later.. Then I can understand some hon. gentlemen to my right being so anxious about this matter of appeal. You get an appeal in this country under any circumstances if you have enough money. That has been my experience.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no; that is not fair.


Clarence Gillis: It seems to me that in leaving it with the minister we are making someone directly responsible for seeing that the functions of the board are carried out. If there is dissatisfaction with a decision of the board there is the right of appeal to the minister. The minister is responsible to this House of Commons, which becomes the court of second instance. Then, since the minister has the supreme responsibility for enforcing the act, through the medium of the board, we as members have the right to make him render an account of his stewardship here in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By then-the damage is done.

Aeronautics Act


Clarence Gillis: But it can be corrected. Hon. gentlemen to my right think the appeal should be not to the minister but to the cabinet. I am a little sceptical of that. The cabinet consists of quite a few men, the great majority of whom are not as familiar as the minister is with the workings of this act. An important development might be held up for years awaiting a decision by a body of men who have not the responsibility of administering the act in the first place, and who do not understand it. The next thing you know you will have a commission appointed to find out whether or not you should go ahead with a certain project. In the interests of getting something done I am prepared to place the responsibility, as this bill suggests, in the hands of the minister, who will be handling it through his board. If that board and the minister are not doing the things that should be done to develop the industry, then we in the house are the people to whom they should be answerable.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He is handling your coal
business in Cape Breton; are you satisfied with it?


Clarence Gillis: Every once in a while I am going to talk about it in the house. I am glad the fuel business is in the hands of the present minister.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are you satisfied?


Clarence Gillis: We have made more progress in the last year in connection with exposing the disability of that industry than we have made in the past twenty-five years.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Have they cured them?


Clarence Gillis: We are pulling the smokescreen from that industry, and getting a fair look at it to-day.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is it being changed?


Clarence Gillis: I am hoping we are going to improve it.
I have risen only to make our position clear. As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to support the minister and place the responsibility in his hands. We are going to hold him responsible in this house, while my hon. friends to the right suggest that the responsibility should be passed along to the cabinet, where no one will be responsible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And then you go out to Port Arthur and defeat him in the next election.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, after the
accusations which have been made I think it is only proper that I should satisfy hon. members opposite with respect to certain legislation. My good friends claimed I could not put my finger on such legislation. I say this to them, that I can put my finger on scores of measures like that, in 1934. I would refer first to a section in an act similar to the section we are now discussing. I find one which is a hundred times worse, much more drastic than the one now before the committee. I refer my hon. friends

and what do you call them? Is it "Thomases"?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It was Peter who doubted. Your Bible is wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the
hon. member is right; Thomas was the doubter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He had better read it again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which church did you
say you belong to?


Vincent Dupuis: Where is the hon. member
for Lake Centre? I would refer the committee to the statutes of 1934. This is section 9 of the Excise Act passed in that year:
The minister may for any reason

"For any reason."
-which he deems sufficient in the public interest refuse to issue any licence or to grant any privilege authorized by this act, or may suspend, cancel or revoke a licence granted or any privilege given 'by this act.
Is that similar, or is it worse?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not even a parallel case. It is not comparable. That is the exercise of a ministerial discretion. The two are not the same, at all.


Vincent Dupuis: And then subsection 2 is as follows:
The minister may authorize the commissioner to exercise on hiis behalf the powers, or any of them, conferred on him by this act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a delegation of power to the commissioner.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that not drastic? That is the totalitarian system. Not only had the minister directionary powers; he had full powers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is the hon. member reading the whole book?


Vincent Dupuis: No, but I hope my hon. friend will read all the legislation passed by his heretofore friend, Viscount Bennett. If he does that he will be satisfied.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I venture to say that the sections the hon. member has read have been in the Excise Act for fifty
Aeronautics Act

years, and have been reenacted. They are only a delegation of power, or a delegation of ministerial authority to a commissioner. In the other case it is the exercise of ministerial discretion. They do not bear the slightest resemblance to the section before the committee to-night.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 43.


Gordon Graydon: The majority is getting less all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 9-Cancellation or suspension [DOT]of licence.	[DOT]
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain this subsection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This subsection gives the board power to suspend or to cancel a licence, in case an operator has not carried out the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 10

Appeal.
Howard Charles Green: Subsection 10 is even more objectionable than subsection 8. This provides for an appeal where a licence has been suspended. Subsection 8 referred to the issuing of a licence. If an applicant did not receive his licence, he might appeal; but subsection 10 covers the man who has actually received his licence, and has then had it cancelled or suspended. Again the appeal is only to the minister. There is a further power of cancellation or suspension in section 13 of the act, a power which is even more drastic than the one we are discussing. The board is authorized under section 13 to investigate all existing licences, and is given carte blanche to suspend or cancel any of those licences. I presume, if there is any appeal at all in the event of such drastic action, it must be to the minister.
I suggest to the committee that this is a clear case where the appeal should be to the governor in council, and not to the minister. In the legislation being brought before the house there is a distinct trend away from cabinet responsibility, and toward giving ministers absolute out-and-out power in everything. I suggest that is a dangerous trend, and one which should be stopped. I presume this practice has arisen because during the war years the government has passed so many orders in council it has simply got into the habit of doing things by short-cuts.
However, the bill before the committee is not a measure for the war period. This is a

measure concerning civil aviation, and it sets out the domestic aviation policy of Canada for the post-iwar years. We should not have any short-cut war measures in connection with this bill. What it amounts to is this, that anybody wishing to obtain a licence or anybody who, having obtained a licence, has had it cancelled or suspended, will have to go hat-inhand to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, or whoever is in charge of civil aviation at that time, and try to make a good fellow of himself, in the hope that he may get some consideration. That is not a good enough way to build up a great system of civil aviation in Canada. It cannot be done in that way.
I move in amendment, therefore:
That subsection 10 of section 12 of Bill No. 133 be amended by substituting for the word "minister" therein the words "governor in council".


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said before, the purpose is to set up a board that will control civil aviation. We will assume that the government intends to place in charge of civil aviation in this country a board that will carefully consider its position and make its judgments after due examination. This bill gives the appellant the right to go to the minister and tell its story. It can go to the minister as a matter of right. If the minister believes that the board has acted too harshly, he can ask the board to reconsider the matter. This is a similar procedure to that explained 'by the Minister of National Revenue. He can ask the board to have another look at the problem. I think that is as far as any minister would logically go. From my own experience in government, I do not believe that any minister, on his own authority, would reverse the finding of a board.
I think what he would do is just what the governor in council has been doing for years with appeals from the board of transport commissioners. The minister would ask the board to reexamine its finding. The reason why the minister is mentioned in the bill, rather than the governor in council, is to have appeals dealt with expeditiously. Appeals to the governor in council become automatic, because the delay involved works on the side of the applicant. This delay has prevented the removal of rail lines which should have been removed; it has prevented the abandonment of services which deserved to be abandoned. It has simply been another way of getting an extension of several months. An appeal to the minister can be made quickly, and it cannot be made the means of delay, as is the case with railway applications.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived: yeas, 17; nays, 29.

Aeronautics Act


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 11 agreed to.	.
Section agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the committee to revert to section 11. At the previous sitting an amendment to this section was moved and carried, but earlier during this sitting the Chairman called section 11 carried, whereas it should have been called, "carried with amendment". The amendment was that the section be amended by inserting the following as paragraph (i) after paragraph (h):
Prescribe maximum hours and other working conditions for pilots and co-pilots employed by any air carrier.
The remaining paragraphs were to be relettered (j), (k) and (1). I ami just calling the attention of the Chairman to the fact that section 11 should be passed as amended.
On section 6-part II-new section 13- Reviewing of former licences.


John George Diefenbaker: Before we proceed with this section may I suggest that here is the appropriate place to insert the amendment to subsection 12 to provide an appeal on questions of law to the supreme court.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I propose to insert a new section 18 to cover that.


Howard Charles Green: Section 13 is drastic and I think the minister should, explain why it is included in the bill. This section gives the air transport board the power to cancel or suspend any licence in existence at the time the board commences its work. In 1938 when the Transport Act was passed setting up the board of transport commissioners just the reverse procedure was followed. Those companies that had licences continued to operate, but now for some reason or another all licences have to be reviewed and the board may cancel or suspend any of them. Why is it necessary to take such drastic powers? Are there licences outstanding which the minister thinks should be cancelled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this section is to allow the board a reasonably free hand to reorganize the air transport services of Canada. I can assure my hon. friend that the section in question will not be used in an arbitrary way, but the board must have power to regroup the air lines in a more orderly way than the present.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any appeal from these cancellations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No appeal.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that the licences are from year to year in any event.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily; they are for such time as the minister may decide.


Howard Charles Green: Are not licences granted
yearly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is true; they are renewed every year.


Howard Charles Green: Why the necessity of this section? It could not be longer than a year before all licences would expire automatically. When the licences are renewed the conditions which the minister wishes to impose could be put in the new licences. Why give the board the power to cancel existing licences?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is just to serve notice that the board have the power. A licence could be allowed to expire and not be renewed, but it has never been the practice to do that. Notice is being served that the board has the right to cancel licences.


Howard Charles Green: Could not that be done by letters to the licencees? There are not a great number of them. It seems to me that that would be a far better way to do it rather than putting an arbitrary section of this type in the statute. This section will be of no value once the board has reviewed all the licences. I suggest that it would be far better to send out a letter pointing out that all licences will expire at the end of the year and that they will not be renewed without further consideration being given to them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government believes it desirable to serve notice on all air lines that the new board will have the power to cancel franchises. It seems a desirable way. Simply a letter from an official of the department to the licencees might not be considered sufficient notice.


Howard Charles Green: They all know now that their licence is good only for a year, do they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, they know that technically, but they all believe that the licences are continuing licences. .


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a public announcement that the crown is going in for government control.


Mr. JACKMAN:: If the government is
allowed to regroup the present lines under this section, what provision is there for compensation in case any particular line is damaged?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no compensation for a franchise. Franchises are not for sale. They are the property of the crown. There is no compensation for the cancelling of a franchise. Compensation may arise out of facilities in-
Aeronautics Act

stalled on air lines or equipment used in the operation of air lines, but franchises are not for sale.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Where is the compensation, then, in case the facilities are no longer usable by that company or nothing can be got for them in case they are sold?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will have to be
considered.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister expects
that civil aviation in this country is going to develop and there are going to be any number of private lines, whether they be large or small, I certainly believe that the provisions of this bill as we now have them before us will prevent any capital from ever flowing into the civil aviation or transport industry in Canada. It will remain a pure government monopoly, and it will probably wither, as nearly all government monopolies do, because they have not the enterprise, vigour and freedom that private enterprise gives. One of the first things that is going to happen from the passing of this measure is that young men, the ones with vision in this industry, will leave Canada, resign from the existing private air transport companies, and go to the south. Already many of them have had offers from the companies there; and we are going to find that the air transport industry here will be on a much diminished scale compared with what it would be if we allowed free enterprise and permitted these various companies some assurance that the investments which will be made in them will be given a fair opportunity to earn a return. As it is, the minister says that they have a licence for only one year, which may be cancelled at any time; yet as sensible people they believe that the government or this department will adopt a sensible attitude, and that the privilege or the licence will be renewed from year to year. Now the minister wishes to insert in this bill clauses which will allow their facilities to be taken over without any compensation whatsoever. All I can say is that this bill is a complete warning to private capital to stay entirely out of the air transport industry in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-part II-new section 14- Former licences continued.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to correct an
error in the printing of the bill, and to amend section 14, line 41, by striking out the words "on or after" after the word "valid" and substituting therefor the words "one year after". "On or" should read "one year."


Stanley Howard Knowles: That explains a lot.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: In section 12, subsection 2, the minister has provided that no company engaged in any other form of transportation shall have an air line, and when he made his speech in March in which he gave the policy of the government on domestic aviation he said that the railway companies were to be forced out of the air business within a year after the war. This section 14 goes much further than that; not only does it purport to cancel licences which have been issued to railway companies, but it cancels all licences.. Why is it necessary to do that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What others are there?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know. There is one. I understand, in the maritimes. Why should all the licences be cancelled at that time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems the simplest way to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Part of your reorganization, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There is, I think, only one licence outstanding other than railway licences.


Howard Charles Green: There might be quite a few others before this date set, which is one year after the termination of the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have great confidence that the board would not issue a licence and then cancel it, except for cause.


Howard Charles Green: The minister thinks there will be no new licences issued before the expiration of this period does he; that is, before one year after the end of the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, this section refers to the old licences.
Every licence issued under part III of the Transport Act, 1938, or under part VII of the air regulations, 1938. . . .
Those are the only licences referred to in this section.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 6-part II-new section 15 agreed to.
On section 6-part II-new section 16-Governor in council may grant assistance.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will the minister explain this, please?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I explained earlier in the debate, the practice in the past has been to-

Aeronautics Act
assist the establishment of a new line by granting a subsidy through the post office-a subsidy, rather than a payment for services rendered. The post office objects to the principle-I think the principle is not very sound- of paying too high a price for the transportation of mail simply for the purpose of assisting the establishment of a new air line. The policy which the government intends to follow in future is that the post office will pay a reasonable amount for the carriage of mail. If a further subsidy is required, to permit the establishment of the line, the subsidy will be paid as a subsidy from funds voted by parliament for that purpose. We believe that is a much more honest way of subsidizing new operations, than to do so by giving an abnormally large rate for the carriage of mail.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does this change in principle mean that the T.C.A. contract with the post office will now be revised according to the new principle?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend, as a member of the committee on Canadian National Railways, should not suggest that the T.C.A. is subsidized. My hon. friend knows very well that the T.CA. turns in a very large profit to the post office for the carriage of air mail.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am just asking a question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend sit down, please? We like wisdom, but not too much of it at one time. My hon. friend knows very well that the post office does not subsidize the T.C.A. In the initial stages, it did subsidize T.C.A. to the extent that it paid more for the carriage of' air mail than it received as revenue from air mail; but that situation has vastly changed, and to-day T.C.A. is a source of revenue to the post office rather than the subject of subsidy.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am merely asking the minister whether or not this new principle which he thinks is fairer-the post office having objected to the principle of it being represented as subsidizing the T.C.A., even though it may work in reverse at times-will apply to a renegotiated contract between T.C.A. and the post office.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no need for such a contract.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The old contract will
[DOT]continue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as men returning from overseas are concerned, handicapped as they will be by lack of capital,
is it intended under this section that capital assistance shall be given them to enable them to commence or develop or carry on civil aviation? Recently, in an interview or a statement by the minister, published in Canadian Aviation, he referred to the matter of capital assistance. I rise now to ask whether it is intended to be the policy of the department or of the minister that capital assistance shall be given these men; for if that is not the policy I cannot see how these men returning from overseas, with merely a few hundred or a thousand dollars at the outset, will be able to commence a development of the kind suggested by the roseate picture which the minister drew when he originally outlined the policy with regard to aviation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have more confidence than my hon. friend in the men returning from overseas.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know so much about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men returning from overseas after the last war established air lines and did very well for a considerable number of ye^rs. I am not altogether sure that the men returning from this war will not have as much initiative as those men. However, this section will give the board the authority to recommend to the government that assistance be given to newly established air lines, whether capital or by way of operating subsidy. The power is there to draw on funds appropriated by parliament for either purpose, but I do not suggest that any group of airmen can expect as a matter of right to have the government furnish all the capital that will be needed for the operation. That is not the intention. The purpose of a small operation is to make sure that investment in the enterprise will be an inducement to the operator to give service to the area for which he is responsible. That financial inducement is a desirable part of any small private enterprise that will have a part in the plan for the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the intention of the minister to make available to the men who return from overseas aircraft that might be used for civil aviation, selling those aircraft on a time basis so as to enable them to finance themselves in the initial stages? When the war is over, large numbers of aircraft owned by the Canadian people will be available for civil aviation purposes, and I suggest that consideration be given to permitting the sale of them on a time basis
Aeronautics Act'

to these men to enable them to have at least certain facilities available so that they can establish for themselves air services, whether on a small or on a large basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the policy of the government to-day to sell used military aircraft. It is doing so every day, and arrangements can be made for sale on time, but it would be very unwise for any group of returned men to buy used military aircraft to start a civil line. Military aircraft are not suitable for the purpose, and therefore I would not care to say anything to-night that would suggest to returned men that the way to establish a civil airline is by the use of military equipment. Returning men will be much wiser to buy proper aircraft, built for the purpose, and I have no doubt that the government will find ways and means of giving such assistance as may be needed to enable them to do so.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In the wording of th'e section there is nothing to prevent the governor in council from authorizing the minister to grant a subsidy to T.C.A. The reason why I bring this question up is this. In the Winnipeg Free Press of April 11 there appears the following:
An extraordinary feature of aviation is the proportion of the total costs borne by the taxpayer on the one hand and the operating companies on the other. Startling examples of this have been given in the Free Press. For instance, the capital of Trans-Canada Air Lines is about $4^ millions, compared with the $96 millions carried by the public in the shape of airports, emergency landing fields, weather services, beacons and the like.
So that T.C.A. shows a small nominal profit on a very nominal capital of four and a half millions, and yet it has a service of $96 million provided for it of a capital nature. One would say, before this bill was introduced, that these services would be available to other air transport companies, but according to the terms of this bill we find that other companies will be divested of their air transport facilities and that any new capital that might enter the field will be frightened away. I would ask the minister the question, coupling with it the question I have already put to him, whether he will be allowed to bonus T.C.A. under this section.
I do not often use T.C.A., but at Easter I was at the airport at Lethbridge coming back from Calgary and there I saw a T.C.A. plane being serviced by an American army truck with gasoline. I could not help wondering what an American army truck, no doubt at the cost of the United States, was doing servicing our T.CA. planes. Perhaps there was an arrangement, but it seemed most extraordinary. When we got to North Bay, where we had to get

off, I saw, as a small item of expense, a safe in the ofiice marked "Canadian National Railways". One wonders who pays for what in T.C.A., and whether the profit is a real profit or actually comes from other public sources such as the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways. I would ask the minister how it is that these items can be reconciled with fair management and with a fair table of operating costs which are directly applicable to T.C.A. and not in the shape of indirect bonuses at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know, T.C.A. is not bonused by the United States government. Lethbridge is on the northwest staging route, and if my hon. friend will follow that route he will find American trucks servicing Canadian planes and Canadian trucks servicing American planes, but more Canadian trucks servicing American planes than vice versa. I hope that explains why, on the northwest staging route, which handles some eighty per cent American planes to twenty per cent Canadian planes, the situation referred to can take place. As regards the safe in the T.C.A. office, I suppose it is a matter of saving money by buying a second-hand safe or perhaps borrowing a safe. At any rate, that is not a large transaction. My hon. friend sits in the committee that examines T.C.A. affairs each year, and since he is acquainted with the operations of the line I do not need to explain them to him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6-part II-new section 17 agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my colleague to move an amendment, which will be section 18 of part II?


William Henry Golding: It is moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that the following be inserted as section 18:
(1)	An appeal shall lie from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of jurisdiction or a question of law, or both, upon leave therefor being obtained from a judge of the said court upon application made within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation sought to be appealed from or within such further time as the judge under special circumstances shall allow, and upon notice to the parties and the board, and the costs of such application shall be in the discretion of the judge.
(2)	On the hearing of any appeal, the court may draw all such inferences as are not inconsistent with the facts expressly found by the bo-ard, and are necessary for determining the question of jurisdiction, or law, as the case may be, and shall certify its opinion to the board, and the board shall make an order in accordance with such opinion.

Transport Act
[DOT] 4971
(3) The court may fix the costs to be paid upon such appeals, and the rules and practice applicable to appeals from the exchequer court shall be applicable to appeals under this section.
We have to renumber sections 18 to 22. Shall the amendment carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Just one question. Would the minister explain subsection 2?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is taken from the Railway Act, subsection 6 of section 52.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 6-part III-new section 19- Regulations to be published. '
Stanley Howard Knowles: With the renumbering I am not just sure where we are. I wish to ask a question about section numbered 19 in the printed form. Have we arrived at that one?


Gordon Graydon: Part III is advanced one in each case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with what was section 19, which I now take is section 20, may I ask whether the laying of these regulations before parliament gives parliament a chance to discuss them in any way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament can discuss them on the appropriate occasion. Any order in council tabled in parliament can be discussed, either on the minister's estimates or at another appropriate time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They can only be
discussed. They have the force of law before they reach that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6-part III as new sections 20 to 23 inclusive, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of bill No. 101, to amend the Transport Act.
Gordon Graydon: I do not recall that the Transport Act was on the agenda for to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was an inadvertence when the business of the house was announced. This is a conjoint bill with the one we have just passed. It has been discussed in the past immediately after the Aeronautics Act.


Gordon Graydon: It was not an oversight on our part.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was just an inadvertence.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that the minister does not expect us to take responsibility for the inadvertence. I did not understand that we were to go on with the Transport Act to-night.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This bill naturally goes along with the one we have just passed. It has been called every night with the other one. Any contentious sections will stand over to another occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-"Harbour toll".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we go any farther may I ask one omnibus question about this bill? Some of the members of the cabinet may wonder at my asking this question after a criticism about the assurance given on the earlier one. I should like to know if there is anything in this bill other than changes made necessary by the bill we have just passed?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Nothing at all. This is merely an amputation bill. The Transport Act is being amputated to the extent that all references to commercial air services are removed and repealed as a consequence of the passing of bill 133, which has just been read a third time and which places the control of commercial aviation under the aeronautics board and act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister state definitely that there is nothing new in this bill?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All negative.


Gordon Graydon: If this bill passes and becomes law it will be removed entirely out of the minister's department?
' Mr. MICHAUD: No. Control of civil aviation will be moved from the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.


Gordon Graydon: That is the question exactly. I want to know that. From then on it comes under the Minister of Munitions and Supply rather than under the Department of Transport.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The administration of the Aeronautics Act will come under the Minister of Munitions and Supply for the time being.
Transport Act


Gordon Graydon: It is not a 'question of the time being; it is a question of it being taken out altogether, is it not?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; it was taken from
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport by order in council in June, 1940.


Gordon Graydon: And this makes it permanent?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. The bill we have
just adopted defines the minister as meaning the Minister of Transport or such other minister as may be designated by the governor in council to administer the act.


Gordon Graydon: You do not mean to tell me the governor in council has anything to say?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Sometimes.


Gordon Graydon: Not after what happened in the debate to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Offences of licencees or agents.	.
Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of Munitions and Supply can spare a moment I should like to know whether there is anything comparable with this section in the air transport hill, covering the same situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman. As I
pointed out to the committee when the air transport bill was under discussion, it has not been the policy to prescribe all the regulations that will necessarily be formulated by the new board. In turning over the administration of the airways to the board of transport commissioners, our difficulty has been that this board was too tightly bound by legislation. All the legislation that had been passed in connection with the railways was brought to bear on the air transport system, and the course of the board was often determined by legal reasons that were not practical reasons, and not reasons that judgment brought to bear on the question would indicate to be [DOT]desirable. In the Aeronautics Act the purpose is to have the board build up its own jurisprudence as time goes on, meeting each situation as it will arise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By jurisprudence the
minister means the regulations to which he referred?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 11-Special rate notices to create trade may be permitted.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because of the fact that ships are able to pick 'up freight in central Ontario, take it down the St. Lawrence and around to Vancouver, we have a cheaper shipping rate to Vancouver by water than to Alberta by rail. In Some cases it is cheaper to ship to Vancouver by water and then to Alberta by rail than to send a shipment direct by rail to Alberta. What is the reason for that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The rates charged by rail and water transportation companies have been subject to the control of the board of transport commissioners since the Transport Act was enacted in 1938. That was one of the main objects in mind in passing that act. There are differentials of all kinds in the rates for the transportation of goods by rail; there are differentials in the rates for transportation by water, and there are differentials as between rail and water transportation. These rates are established by the board of transport commissioners, who have the advice of the rate experts of different transportation companies, who consult with the experts of the board. I have not before me the details or the schedules of all these rates, but they are made by order of the board and are subject to appeal if anyone is dissatisfied with them.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Are all the ports
of Canada under the jurisdiction of the dominion government?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All ports are subject to
some control under some laws of the dominion, but I think the hon. gentleman means to ask whether all ports are under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board. The answer is that not all ports are under their jurisdiction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Aeroplanes are out of the picture now, as far as this board is concerned?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then who is to be responsible for the regulation of air traffic in the various ports? I am thinking of the Toronto harbour, which is under the control of the Toronto harbour commission. Who is to be responsible for the regulation of air traffic in that harbour?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The aeronautics board.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Might I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply who is to have jurisdiction over the coming and going of aeroplanes in a harbour such as that of Toronto?

Quebec Election


Clarence Decatur Howe: The city of Toronto owns and administers the airport under the regulations of the air transport board. All aviation is carried on under the direction of federal authority.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: : I have in mind particularly the operation of seaplanes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They come under the control of the air transport board.	-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: WTho will have the final say as to how they are to come and go?
Mr. HOW^E: The air transport board.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The harbour commissioners will have nothing whatever to do with it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The harbour commissioners will operate the seaplane base, just as they operate the land plane base, as the owners; they will direct traffic in connection with both, in accordance with the rules laid down by the air transport board.
IMr. ROSS (St. Paul's): They will direct traffic of the air boats, not the steam boats.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The harbour of Toronto, so far as navigation by water is concerned, is independent in making its regulations for incoming and outgoing boats. I understood my hon. friend to ask whether rates for transportation of goods into that 'harbour would be under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. I believe they will continue under the jurisdiction of that board, inasmuch as it has 'been given jurisdiction by the Transport Act of 1938. This change will not affect the movement of goods into or out of the port of Toronto by water.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: As I understand it, the 'harbour commissioners have the regulation of all traffic in the harbour.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We shall now have two controls in Toronto harbour. The board connected with civil aviation will now come into the picture and, I suppose, will make regulations. I understand that the harbour commissioners will have to carry those out. Is that correct? Who will have the final say in the matter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: I thought the minister was going to answer.
Mr. ROS'S (St: Paul's): I thought so, too. I should like to know something about it, as to how it is to be arranged.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I explain the air matter. The owner of an airport who is also the operator of the airport, has charge of traffic on that airport. But there are certain rules of the air laid down by the air transport board, and those rules must be obeyed. They are made in the interests of safety, and the operator of an airport must carry them out. If an airport is licensed, to maintain that licence it must live up to the traffic and safety rules laid dlown by the air transport board. Similarly, railroads must operate according to safety regulations laid down by the board of transport commissioners, and marine traffic must be regulated in the interest of safety, according to the rules laid down by the Department of Transport at Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
Bill reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 18, 1944