1944-05-15

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I desire to lay on the table copy of an order in council passed on May 5 affecting the movement of Chinese into Canada and out of Canada. The house will recall that on April 17 the Prime Minister informed the house that a draft immigration treaty with China was under consideration which would establish on a mutual and reciprocal basis the admission to each country of approved categories of persons from the other. Pending the bringing into effect of this treaty the order in council, which is No. P.C. 3378, has been passed. It covers Chinese persons wishing to pass through Canada in transit to another place, and also Chinese persons who wish to come here for temporary visits. Henceforth the persons involved will be dealt with under the ordinary provisions of the Immigration Act. In addition, the order modifies some provisions which hitherto restricted the position of Chinese residents in Canada who wished to go outside the country for a visit and subsequently return.
I might add that the order in council changes only the regulations governing temporary visits and "in transit" passage, and does not affect the provisions governing entry to Canada for permanent residence. These have been left for settlement in the treaty negotiations of which the Prime Minister spoke.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Are the provisions of the Atlantic charter given effect?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not aware just in what way the provisions of the Atlantic charter would apply to this particular matter-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister had better read it up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -but I presume they have been in mind in the discussions which have taken place with the Chinese government in respect to a new treaty governing it.



CHINESE NATIONALS


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Arising out of the statement which the minister has just made, I desire to 100-182
ask whether he has seen the latest issue of the New Republic, which renews the controversy with respect to a girl of Chinese origin who was taken off a train at Buffalo. I understand that the question is now put up squarely to the government-not perhaps that the person involved in the commission of this act was a Canadian; the statement of the Prime Minister and of the minister in that respect apparently is correct-but the point now raised is that it was done in accordance with Canadian law. I should like the minister to look into that matter, because the article brings the point up again. I wish the minister would look at the latest issue of the New Republic, which deals with the matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not seen the issue of the New Republic and the article to which my hon. friend alludes. It was brought to my attention over the telephone this morning by the director of immigration.


Gordon Graydon: The article was?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am speaking of the article. Of course under the law as it stood- that is, the Chinese Immigration Act-people of the Chinese race were prohibited entry to Canada except under certain conditions. In the incident in question the lady involved was not put off the train or asked to leave the train by a Canadian immigration official- which was the statement made, as I recall, in the original article in the New Republic.


Gordon Graydon: That part was correct.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is correct. The surmise is that some official, railway or other, in the United States, suggested or asked her to leave the train because she did not have a bond, I assume, permitting her to cross Canada, in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act. The whole incident was very regrettable, and I may say that the order in council which I have just tabled will prevent the recurrence of any such incidents.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the amount of war risk insurance sold?
2.	What was the amount of the premiums?

Questions

3.	What was the cost to the government?
4.	Have any claims been made under war risk insurance?
5.	If so, what were the claims?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	To March 31, 1944, $3,611,370,271 (preliminary).
2.	The premiums paid to March 31, 1944, totalled $7,689,696.
3.	To March 31, 1944, $509,070.59 (preliminary).
4.	Yes.
5.	Three claims have been admitted in the amount of $435.
Note: The answers to questions 1 and 2 do not include insurance on grain or dominion government property.


OLD AGE AND BLIND PENSIONERS-ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Has the dominion government entered into agreements with the provinces as to additional payments to beneficiaries of old age pensions and pensions to the blind, as authorized by order in council 6367, dated August 10, 1943?
2.	If so, (a) with what provinces did the government enter into such agreements; (b) on what date were such agreements entered into with each province; (c) what additional amounts are being actually paid by each province, pursuant to said agreements, to beneficiaries of old age pensions and pensions to the blind, under its jurisdiction; (d) what are such additional payments for each of the two classes of beneficiaries?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) All provinces; (b) The effective date of the agreement with each province was as follows:
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, September 1, 1943.
Nova Scotia, P.E.I., October 1, 1943.
Ontario, New Brunswick, November 1, 1943.
(c) and (d) The dominion publishes only the amounts paid by the dominion to the provinces for old age pensions and pensions in respect of blindness.
Order in council P.C. 6367 provides that the amount required to pay the dominion's share of the increase in the amount of pensions paid under the authority of the order in council shall be a charge upon the war appropriation. The amounts charged to the war appropriation for payments to the provinces from the effecitve date to March 31, 1944, are as follows:

Province	Old age	Blind	Alberta 	. $ 215,632	25	$ 5,614	75British Columbia..	. 325,234	26	7,849	81Manitoba 	. 288,541	49	8,285	86New Brunswick...	. 39,550	93	9,306	74Nova Scotia	. 52^258	72	4,815	32Ontario 	. 850,558	99	24,532	09P.E.I	. 31,213	58	2,251	22Quebec 	. 1,135,904	54	56,417	19Saskatchewan ....	. 292,829	87	7,873	09
* Manitoba payments made in fiscal year 1944-45.


CANADIAN FORCES-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	How many agricultural workers were called for a second medical examination?
2.	What was the cost of such medical examinations before the boards of review?


Mr. MARTIN:: It is not possible to answer this question, as the files of men in the registrar's offices are kept in numerical sequence according to their call-up numbers. There is no grouping from the record by occupation. Consequently the hon. gentleman may agree to have the question dropped.
Question dropped.


CONTINENTAL GLOVE COMPANY-AIRMEN'S GLOVES
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Did the Continental Glove Company of Montreal receive a contract from the government for the lining of airmen's gloves?
2.	If so, was the lining to be shorn lamb?
3.	Were the gloves lined with shorn lamb?
4.	If not, what substance was used in the lining?
5.	Who did the inspection of these linings?
6.	Did the inspector that first inspected the linings pass them?
7.	If not, who did pass the linings?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Imitation lamb skin.
5.	The Inspection Board of United Kingdom
and Canada.	,
6.	No.
7.	As shorn lamb lining was not obtainable in sufficient quantity, the specifications for airmen's gloves were modified by the supply division of the R.C.A.F. to allow the substitution of imitation lamb skin.

Questions


PORTNEUF, QUE., RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many rural mail contracts have been renewed, each year since 1942 inclusive, in the county of Portneuf?
2.	How many holders thereof have been changed during said period?
3.	What are the names of the new holders, the amount of their tenders, and the designation or number of their routes?
4.	How many contracts have been increased in price without change of holders, and what are the designation or number, and the district of the routes therein mentioned?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Calendar
year
1942		 9
1943		 14
1944	(to date)	 9
2.
1942		  5
1943		 7
1944	(to	date)	 2
3.	Name of new holder-Amount of Tender -Mail Service
Louis Briere. $600. Pont Rouge Rural Route No. 1.
Mrs. R. D. Thibault, $590, Portneuf Station Rural Route No. 2.
Emilien Naud, $692, St. Alban Rural Route No. 1.
Henri Belanger, $660, St. Casimir Rural Route No. 2.
Jos. Paquin, Transfer, Stage Service-Mon-tauban & Montauban les Mines.
Benoit Douville, Transfer, Stage Service-St. Alban & Railway Stn. (Lachevrotiere).
Joseph Genest, $385, Side Service-Atlantic & Ry. Stn.
Bruno Viellette, $351, Side Service-Hervey Junction & Ry. Stn.
Henri Cloutier, $480, Side Service-Lac Edouard & Ry. Stn.
Mrs. Rose Belle-Isle Trottier, Transfer, Side Service-Lachevrotiere & Ry. Stn. (2).
Henri Bertrand, temporary arrangement without tenders, Side Service-Montauban & Ry. Stn.
Roland St. Amand, $350, Side Service- Montauban & Ry. Stn.
ChaHes E. Rochette, $391.25, Side Service- St. Augustin de Quebec & C.N. & C.P. Stns.
Albert Martel, $159.50, Side Service-St. Casimir & Ry Stn.
100-182J
4. Fifteen.
Pont Rouge Rural Route No. 2.
Portneuf Station Rural Route No. 1.
Shannon Rural Route No. 1.
St. Casimir Rural Route No. 1.
St. Ubald Rural Route No. 1.
Stage Service Chute Panet & Ry. Stn.
Stage Service Montauban & Montauban les Mines.
Stage Service St. Alban & Ry. Stn. (Lachevrotiere).
Stage Service St. Casimir & St. Ubald.
Side Service Deschambault & Ry. Stn.
Side Service Lac aux Sables & Ry. Stn.
Side Service Neuville & Ry. Stn.
Side Service Pont Rouge & Ry. Stn.
Side Service Ste. Catherine & Ry. Stn.
Side Service St. Raymond & Ry. Stn.


SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS IN BONDED STORAGE
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What was the total amount, in gallons, each of whiskey, brandy, gin and rum in bonded storage in Canada on March 31, 1944?
2.	How many gallons of each were released from bond during the year ending March 31, 1944?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1 and 2. The excise division maintains records of the quantity of spirits held in or released from bond, but no differentiation is made in the type of spirit.


MOBILIZATION ACT-MALE CANADIANS IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many male Canadians between 18 and 38 years of age are there in the United States of America who have not become nor have made preliminary applications with a view to becoming United States citizens?
2.	Are such persons subject to the provisions-of the National Resources Mobilization Act?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	No information is available.
2.	Any Canadian who resides in the U.S.A. is not subject to The National Selective Service Mobilization Regulations 1944, nor can he be extradited for an offence under these regulations. If between 18 and 38 years of age and if he resides for a period of three months in the U.S.A., he becomes liable for service in the American armed forces. At that time, he has the option of serving in the Canadian army. If he so wishes, and is found-acceptable, he is attested by Canadian authori-
Questions

ties in the United States for general service in the Canadian army and is returned to Canada for military duty. Americans in Canada are governed by similar regulations.


HOOPER HOLMES BUREAU-ASSOCIATED CREDIT BUREAUX
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	In what cities in Saskatchewan do either the Hooper-Holmes Bureau, or the Associated Credit Bureaux, or both, which were referred to in the statement of the Minister of Labour of April 28, 1944, have branches or agents?
2.	What are the names and office addresses of such branches or agents?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Regina (Associated Credit Bureau).
2.	Retail Merchants Association of Canada Inc., 504 Kerr Building, Regina, Saskatchewan.


CANADIAN AMBASSADORS-LANGUAGE USED ON LETTERHEADS, ETC.
Mr. DORION:: What is the language used by Canadian ambassadors in the various countries in which they represent Canada, (a) in the case of outdoor signs showing the building or offices occupied by them; (b) on letterheads used in the course of their official duties; (c) on all printed forms used in the course of their duties?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
(a)	The outdoor signs are prepared locally on the instructions of each ambassador, and it is left to his discretion to determine what languages should be used having regard to the language of the country.
(b)	Both French and English.
(c)	English is usually employed on forms for purely internal use inside Canadian embassies. The languages used on other printed forms depend on the language and custom of the country concerned.


PERMITS FOR PURCHASE OF NEW TRUCKS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	How many permits have been granted for the purchase of new trucks since the 1st January, 1944, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What are the names of the persons to whom such permits were granted?


Mr. HOWE:: 1 and 2. Permits issued for the release of trucks are not recorded by provinces but are classified in essentiality groups. Please refer to page 2801 of Hansard for the list of trucks released for war work and essential services
fMr. Martin.]


INTERNMENTS-ALOIS N. SCHNEIDER
Mr. BENCE:: What were the conditions existing on June 10. 1940, which satisfied the Minister of Justice that one Alois N. Schneider should be interned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The war situation in Europe and the general apprehension of possible subversive (fifth column) activities extending to Canada.


FLOUR PRICES
Mr. PERLEY:: What was the sales price of Canadian flour, both for mutual aid and other export, (a) per 100 pounds; (b) per barrel of 196 pounds, (i) f.o.b. Saint John, New Brunswick, (ii) f.o.b. Vancouver, British Columbia, as of each weekend since January 1, 1944?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: For mutual aid, per 280 pounds of G. R. flour in 140 pound jute sacks (1).
	f.o.b.	fo.b.
Month of Shipment	Saint John	Vancouverfrom mill (2)	N.B.	B.C.January 	. $ 80- 9 30	(3) 18 95February 	9 35	9 00March 	9 40	9 05April 	9 40	9 05May 	9 40	9 05
For other export, no information available, since this is private trade.
(1)	. No shipments made, and no quotations available per 100 pounds; or per barrel of 196 pounds.
(2)	. Prices are the same for each month of shipment.
(3)	. Early in September, 1943, certain mills entered into contracts for January shipment at $8.80. Contracts for January shipment entered into after September 27, 1943, were made at $9.30.


*RADIO BROADCASTING-WALTER WINCHELL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	At whose instance did the American columnist and broadcaster, Mr. Walter Winchell, recently visit Canada?
2.	Did the wartime information board furnish him with the material which he has used in recent articles and broadcasts in the United States?
3.	What remuneration did Mr. Winchell receive from the Canadian treasury for his services in this connection?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can give an oral answer to this question. In regard to part 1 of the question, the government has no information as to when Mr. Winchell was last in Canada, if indeed he has ever been here. It is reported that he stated in a broadcast last night that

Questions
he had not been in Canada since 1914. In regard to part 2, the wartime information board did not furnish to Mr. Winchell the information upon which he based his article. As the house is well aware, the wartime information board has disseminated pretty widely in the United States information regarding Canada's war effort, and it is possible, probably it may be presumed, that Mr. Winchell obtained in that way the material upon which he based his article. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) mentions to me that question 2 deals also with broadcasts. What I have said about information from the wartime information board applies to broadcasts as well. In regard to part 3, the government of course did not pay Mr. Winchell from the Canadian treasury for any service to Canada that he may have rendered in this connection.
May I add this? It is unfortunate that this question was asked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why? That is not a part of the answer-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and it is not in order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Winchell-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -voluntarily gave wide
publicity in the United States to an article-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -which paid a very generous tribute to the war effort of the Canadian people-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was a generous tribute to the war effort of the Canadian people-


Richard Burpee Hanson: To the
government, not the Canadian people.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and the implication is quite clearly conveyed in this question that there were ulterior considerations possibly involved in that. I wish to repudiate wholly that suggestion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that that is not part of the duty-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; let us have a little quiet for a change. I submit that under the rules the last statement of the minister is entirely out of order


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: He is answering a question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not an answer to the question asked and should be stricken from the record.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What about the question?


Mr. RALSTON:: I would have expected
my hon. friend to hang his head in shame at the question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: -and I suggest, on a point of order, that it is in order for a member of the government, when a suggestion such as this is put upon the record, with respect to a man who has seen fit to pay a generous tribute, and a true tribute, to Canada's war effort-I submit, I say, that it is perfectly in order for a member of the government to indicate that the attributing of ulterior motives is entirely out of order and should not be done.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had some discussion with respect to this particular question, I wonder if I may say a word in connection with it. I have not had the opportunity of hearing the broadcast which is mentioned in the question, nor have I had the opportunity of reading the article to which it refers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Of course, I am so busy trying to read "Canada At War" and other paid publications that it is difficult to keep up with all these things.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read Public Opinion.


Gordon Graydon: For the most part the cabinet is engaged with it and it is hard to get a copy. May I say that everyone will be in agreement that we should not discourage in any way other nations from praising our war effort, so far as the Canadian people are concerned. I think there will be general unanimity in the house on that point. Our real problem, however, amounts to this, and it is a very simple one, particularly in a year when perhaps, with the heat of elections that are approaching, it is very difficult at times to distinguish between praising of the Canadian people's war effort and praise of the effort of members of a one-party government and its Prime Minister who is running the war at the present moment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order
Questions


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, we may as well be frank about this. There is no desire to be acrimonious on the point at all, but when the leader of the government makes the statement he does, I think it is well to put this on the record, because so far as we are concerned-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are ashamed.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to finish at any rate. The fact is that in all these things which have arisen from time to time, such as this, it is well for Mr. Winchell and other gentlemen in the United States, and in other countries as well, to know that it has all stemmed not from what they honestly think and say with respect to the domestic situation here, but from the fact that rightly or wrongly, and I think wrongly, the Canadian war effort, because the government has so decided, has been run by a one-party administration. These things stem of course from that cause.


James Layton Ralston: I think I have a right to say a word on that. My hon. friend has put his finger right on it. If it is going to be regarded as a cardinal principle that we cannot have any praise of Canada's war effort for fear it might possibly enure to the benefit or the credit of the administration, then it has come to a sad pass in this country. If my hon. friend and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), as well as the hon. gentleman who asked this question, are so thin-skinned about it, then it seems to me it indicates perhaps that they have not a proper appreciation of the responsibilities of public men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thanks for the lecture.


James Layton Ralston: I happen to have in my hand the statement which was made by Mr. Winchell. I had not seen it before, but I have glanced through it. There is not one sentence in it which by the wildest stretch of the imagination could be regarded as giving credit to any particular government. As my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) has said, the whole statement is with regard to the effort of the Canadian people.
I think my hon. friend will join with me in this. I think we would feel very badly if we happened to praise the United States' war effort, happening to come as it does under the administration of President Roosevelt, and then found ourselves pilloried by questions in the Congressional Record asking whether or not we were in the pay of the United States

government or the United States administration. That is the imputation that is cast on Mr. Winchell, and that is the imputation that my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources properly undertook to refute in the statement that he made.


Gordon Graydon: I can hardly think that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ralston) was attempting to indicate that so far as we were concerned there was a desire on the part of any of us to prevent discussion or a description of Canada's war effort. I think I made it clear at the beginning that I had not seen the article, and more than that if it were the kind of article that is sometimes put out giving praise not to the Canadian people but to others, then there is justification for criticism on that score. I do not think we are very far apart in this matter, but I do think when it is remembered that we have a one-party administration it is obvious that these questions will crop up. It is difficult at times to avoid them.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say is there appeared to be an attempt to question the good faith and accuracy of statements made by a gentleman in commendation of Canada's war effort. That was the desire.


Gordon Graydon: We did not suggest any such thing.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has this not gone on long enough?


INTERNMENTS-ALOIS N. SCHNEIDER
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	How many applications did Alois N. Schneider make for his release from internment under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations ?
2.	How many of such applications were considered by advisory committees under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations?
3.	On what dates were such applications heard?
4.	What were the decisions of the advisory committee in each ease?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Three.
2.	Three.
3 and 4.
Date of application-Date of hearing- Decisions
Sept. 23, 1939; Dec. 4, 1939; no recommendation.
July 9, 1942; Sept. 22, 1942; continued detention.
Oct. 16, 1943; about Feb. 16, 1944; conditional release.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many married men over twenty-five years of age have been called up for military service under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act, (a) since the act came into force; (b) since the 1st day of January, 1944, by (i) military districts, (ii) mobilization districts?


RADIO BROADCASTING LICENCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have any radio broadcasting licences been applied for during the past year?
2.	If so, who were the applicants in each case?
3.	What decision has been made in each case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return, tabled.


SWITLIK CANADIAN PARACHUTES LIMITED- LALONDE AND VALOIS-J. FRANCOIS LEDUC
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have Lalonde & Valois, engineers, 606 Cathoart street, Montreal, obtained contracts from the dominion government, and are they associated with Switlik Canadian Parachutes Limited, 3575 St. Lawrence street, Montreal?
2.	If so, for what total amount since 1939, and for what amounts in each of the years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944?
3.	Has J. Frangois Ledue, consulting engineer. 354 St. Catherine street east, Montreal, obtained sub-contracts from the dominion government, and is he associated with Switlik Canadian Parachutes Limited, 3575 St. Lawrence street, Montreal ?
4.	If so, for what total amount during each of the years above-mentioned?
5.	How much money has been paid to him by the government up to the present?


FUNDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What contracts, extensions of contracts or sub-contracts have been entered into or approved since November 1, 1941, with the Fundy Construction Company Limited by the Department of Public Works, the Department of Mines and Resources (national parks branch), the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, the Department of National Defence for Air Services or other departments of the government?
2.	What were the dates of such contracts, extensions of contracts and sub-contracts, and the. estimated costs of each?
3.	What payments have been made on account of each such contract, extension and subcontract?
4.	What sums have been claimed by contractor as "extras" on each such contract, extension or sub-contract?
5.	What is the nature of each claim?
6.	What payments have been made on account of each claim for "extras"?
7.	What claims have been rejected?
8.	What claims were being considered on April 30, 1944?
9.	What is the amount of each?
10.	What further sums are estimated as being required to complete each such contract, extension and sub-contract?
11.	When is it expected that same will be completed?
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AS OF MARCH 31, 1944 Mr. McGREGOR:
1.	How many government employees, both permanent and temporary, including those working on wartime boards, were there as of March 31, 1944?
2.	How many were there on March 31, 1943?


BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many boards or commissions were appointed since September 3, 1939?
2.	How many orders w'ere made by each of such boards or commissions?
3.	How many of said orders were made for each of the federal departments?
4.	How many actions were instituted under said orders?


SUNNYBROOK, TORONTO, SOLDIERS' HOSPITAL BUILDINGS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the erection of any portion of the new soldiers' hospital buildings at Sunnybrook, Toronto; what progress has been made on calling for tenders; for what part of the new hospital, and at what time is it estimated that actual building operations will be commenced?
2.	What has been done to build improved roadways to and on the property; to provide transportation facilities to hospital, and other municipal services such as sewers and water supply?
3.	What additional hospital accommodation has been provided at Toronto for soldiers since the last session of parliament in 1943?


HOUSING-TORONTO
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any plans for building / houses in Toronto to relieve the scarcity of small
houses there?
2.	If so. what are such plans, (a) for wartime houses; (b) for small houses for soldiers; (c) for civilians?
3.	Are negotiations pending with the city government on any such plan or plans?
4.	If so, what reply has the city given, and what action has or will be taken by the government?


MOBILIZATION ACT-EXEMPTION OF ALIENS
Mr. GREEN:: 1. What are the respective nationalities of the 9,867 aliens, referred to at page 2627 of Hansard, who have signed the declaration set out in schedule "A" to national selective service
Motions for Papers

mobilization regulations 1914 (P.C. 1355), in [DOT]which exemption is claimed from the provisions of such regulations?
2.	How many of each nationality were in each administrative division?


VALCARTIER CAMP-FIREWOOD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
How many cords of firewood were sold and delivered to Valcartier camp from May 1, 1942, to May 1, 1944, showing, (a) names of dealers; (b) date of deliveries; (c) price?

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Munitions and Supply and Canadian Oar Munitions Limited in relation to-the Cherrier war plant in connection with the termination of .operation of the said plant by the said company -and the placing of said plant in charge of Defence Industries Limited.


WINNIPEG HYDRO-ELECTRIC-SLAVE FALLS PLANT
Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the construction controller, or any official or department of the government, relating to the application of the city of Winnipeg hydro electric system for a permit to commence preliminary work on the extension of its Slave falls plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


HOUSING-WINNIPEG-MONTREAL-MW RENT DWELLINGS
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of the letter written to Mr. G. F. Bentley, city clerk of Winnipeg, by the Minister of Finance, as reported in Hansard on page 2705; also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Finance and the group of citizens in Montreal, with reference to the current plan for the building of low-rent dwellings in Montreal.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Has the attorney-general of Quebec communicated with the Department of Justice about the reopening of the coroner's inquest in the case of young Gu6nette who was recently shot dead under the rule of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
fMr. Green.]
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister
of Justice) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, the
terms which the hon. member has used in asking his question are not in accordance with the verdict returned as a result of the coroner's inquest. Notwithstanding the terms he has used, I may answ-er him at once that I have so far received from the attorney general of Quebec no communication whatever in that connection.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: On Friday the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) asked the Secretary of State the acting Minister of Labour certain questions. The Secretary of State said that he would endeavour to have the questions answered to-day. I now have the answers. They are as follows:
The United States military authorities have not opened an office in Vancouver, B.C., to recruit labour for the Alaska highway. The United States authorities have, however, maintained an accounts office in Vancouver for the past eighteen months.
The accounts office referred to is not attempting to hire men in Vancouver for the Alaska highway and no, requests for men to work on this highway have been placed with the national selective service office at Vancouver.
The Standard Oil company placed an order for seventy-five men for the Canol Oil Refinery project, which was later reduced to eight men.
The net unfilled vacancies for male and female workers at Vancouver on February 24 and May 4 of this year were 3,618 and 6,486 respectively.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Last week the Minister of National Revenue made a statement in Hamilton to the effect that by a recent ruling of the income tax department deductible allowances for unusual medical expenses provided by the Income Tax Act had been extended to apply to osteopaths and chiropractors, physiotherapists and others registered under any dominion or provincial legislation. Will the minister tell us

War Appropriation-Justice
if this was announced in the House of Commons; and also if chiropodists come under this ruling?


Colin William George Gibson: When I was in Hamilton I did make an announcement concerning a ruling that had been made under the Income War Tax Act as to those who are entitled to be included under the clause in the Income War Tax Act dealing with unusual medical expenses. The act provides that certain practitioners who are licensed in the provinces come within a certain class. The accounts of these people may be allowed as a medical expense. The ruling includes osteopaths and chiropractors if they are registered in their province and have a licence to practice in that province. I would not want to make a ruling with regard to all branches of the medical profession until details of their qualifications are put before me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does it
apply to Christian Science healers?


Colin William George Gibson: As I have said, I would not want to answer that question without full details of their qualifications


BUILDING MATERIALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have a
communication from the Board of Education of the city of Toronto stating that they have asked for permits to build an addition to Perth avenue school for community purposes as well as two other capital projects for community purposes in that city. A survey has been made and it is necessary to have this work done for community purposes. Several other schools in Toronto and neighbourhood have been granted permits. I wonder if the Minister of Munitions and Supply could indicate when we may have those permits.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must advise my hon. friend
that the steel situation is very tight at the moment. The situation has varied from time to time. It passed from a period of stringency into a fairly easy position for a few months. It has now reverted to a period of stringency. I suggest that these applications be filed, and consideration will be given to them as soon as the steel situation again eases to the point where the necessary materials can be furnished.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 12, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of the defence of Canada regulations, $30,000.
Alfred Henry Bence: I should like the Minister of Justice to give the committee a review of the general principles now applicable in reference to the release of men from internment camps. Considerable agitation has been aroused in this country by the recent release of three men named Joseph Farr, John Lorimer and Alois N. Schneider. I do not know very much about the first two, who I understand were incarcerated because of their fascist leaning, but I do know something about the last named, who comes from Saskatchewan. I understand that these men were interned because they were believed to be in sympathy with the German reieh. If that was the reason for their internment, I suggest that conditions have not altered sufficiently to justify the administration in concluding that they now should be released.
This man Schneider, who lives in the northern part of Saskatchewan, was interned on September 5, 1939; he was picked up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, presumably because they had information that he was the type of man likely to be dangerous in time of war. Subsequently, after considerable pressure had been brought to bear, he was released on December 21, 1939. I may add that the information in connection with this matter is contained in a question asked by myself and answered by the minister on May 4 of this year, and appearing in Hansard of that date. This man Schneider was out of the internment camp from December 21, 1939, to June 10, 1940, when he was again incarcerated. According to an answer given me by the minister to-day, he was placed in the internment camp on the second occasion for this reason:
The war situation in Europe and the general apprehension of possible subversive (fifth column) activities extending to Canada.
I should like to know whether the minister and the administration believe the situation to be any less tense to-day, so far as Europe is concerned, than it was at that time, and whether or not there is now reason for less

War Appropriation-Justice

general apprehension in respect to possible subversive fifth column activities. This man was returned to the internment camp on June 10, 1940, and remained there until February 21, 1944, when he was released. According to the information I received to-day in answer to another question, he was released after making three applications. The first was made on September 23, 1939, and after a hearing on December 4, 1939, no recommendation was made by the committee. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, he was released some seventeen days later, apparently solely on the responsibility of the administration. On July 9, 1942, he applied again for release; his hearing was on September 22, 1942, and the recommendation of the committee was that he should be continued in detention. On October 16, 1943, he made another application, which was heard about February 16, 1944, and he was granted his conditional release. The question I asked on May 4, as to the reason for his release on the previous occasion, was as follows:
What change has there been in the conditions with respect to this man since the date of his reinternment which would justify his release ?
The answer was:
The information which was before the advisory committee must be treated as confidential, but in addition to that which concerned Alois N. Schneider himself, it was publicly known that he has two nephews in the Canadian army overseas, and his own son, who is not old enough to join the army, is serving in the home defence force.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what difference it makes whether a man has nephews in the army, or even whether he has a son in the reserve army. If this man was placed in an internment camp because he was a danger to Canada through his sympathies with the German reich, conditions have not altered in the meantime, I suggest, to the extent indicated by the minister in his answer to these questions. The point is that if this man was properly placed in an internment camp in the first place, in my judgment conditions have not changed sufficiently to justify his release at the present time. If he was improperly placed in the internment camp in the first place, then the administration should be frank with this house and advise us that the man never should have been put in the camp. If that is the proper answer, an explanation should be given as to why he was allowed to remain there for this length of time.
I understand that the same situation exists with respect to the other two men I have mentioned, though I do not know very much

about them and am not prepared to debate the point. It seems to me that if this man Schneider was properly interned in the first place because of his sympathy with the German reich, a better explanation than has been given by the minister should be advanced to this house for his release at the present time. It may be that he promised to be a good boy; I do not know. It was suggested in the press the other day that Mr. Camillien Houde might be released from internment if in effect he would promise to be a good boy, and I am just wondering if this is why Mr. Schneider and these other so-called fascists were released, if they have now promised not to do any harm as far as our war effort is concerned.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I should like to say a word about this man Alois N. Schneider, because he happens to live in a town in my constituency. As hon. members know, he was arrested in 1939; then, for what reason we do not know, he was released. I have tried to ascertain from the minister who was responsible for getting him released, but unfortunately I have been unable to get this information.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Do you know what date he was released?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: In December, 1939, I believe.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, for us at this end of the chamber to have some part in this discussion of my estimates?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? The facts are well known, and I am afraid they are not going to be very welcome to hon. members who sit on the opposite benches. While the Minister of Justice did not tell this house who was responsible for obtaining the release of this man Schneider, people up in the northern part of the country know very well that his release was desired very greatly by the former Liberal member of the house, whom I happened to defeat, Mr. McIntosh, whose organizer he was up in that northern area.
I must say that up in the northern part of my country we have a number of German people, and I believe their position during this war has been very terrible.
Many of them had relatives still at home in Germany. Before the war began these people used to receive letters from their relatives telling them that things in Germany were much better, that there was no depression over there, that they did not have unemployment, and that Hitler was building roads and making employment. They were told that

War Appropriation

Justice
this, that and the other thing was good. I can remember talking to one of these German people on the street of a small town up north. He said to me, "Look at our little town, with all these youngsters standing around the pool parlours, with nothing to do. It is not that way in Germany. We have clubs; we have the youth movement for our children." I can quite understand a person like Mr. Schneider, who was in a position to prey upon the fears of these German people, naturally reaching the point where he would be looked upon by them as a leader. There is no doubt whatsoever that he was nazi in his sympathies, and that he tried to organize in that direction. Then, this man Schneider happened to be land agent and machine agent, and possibly to many of these people he had become a friend. He might allow them a little more time for payment on land, or might make a good deal with them for machinery. *


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was he a government employee?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I do not think he was. But possibly he was in a position where he had a hold over them. Then when he suggested that they join the bund, it is possible that they would agree with him, and in this way he would build up an organization in that part of the country.
But the great majority of these German farmers were very poor, with little time to think about politics. All they wanted to do was to get a living from the land, and be ordinary, good Canadian people. I know that. As soon as the war started there was a certain amount of hysteria among some people. Indeed, anyone who had a German name had to be very careful what he said. Many selfappointed vigilante committees were set up here and there, and if anyone with a German name happened to say anything that sounded suspicious he would be reported by the committee. I think a number of German people were arrested at the beginning of the war without any real cause. I had a conversation with the minister's deputy-I refer to Mr. Anderson, the gentleman who now sits in front of him-regarding the release of one of these Germans in my part of the country. This was a young man named Zieglansburger, who had been arrested and interned. I feel certain that inadvertently he had said something that was picked up and reported, but I am just as certain that he had no use whatsoever for the nazi ideology. However, he was a German, and people in that state of hysteria felt that every German should be arrested and put away. I am not in sympathy with that. Many of our German people have no desire other than that of being good 100-183J
Canadians. But when we find a man like Schneider, who was definitely organizing those with whom he came in contact under the nazi doctrine, we must place him in a very different category from the ordinary run of German farmer. I repeat that we should know whether this man has been wrongfully interned for a period of some years. If so, why is it that we have not had his release before this? If he was just a poor, innocent person whose German name was responsible for his internment, we should know it. If on the other hand he was picked up twice, once in 1939 and again in 1940, there must have been some reason for it. And if those reasons justified his internment until now, why was he released just a few weeks before a provincial election?
I have no doubt at all that this man is very busy, working in an organizational capacity for the Liberal party in that part of the country. I say this emphatically, because I believe the people of that north country should be given the facts, and I say the committee would be justified in having from the minister a much more comprehensive statement than we have had in the past respecting this man's activities.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, in days gone by I have been somewhat instrumental in advocating in the house that Canada should set an example to the rest of the world in respect of its attitude in standing for freedom of religion and freedom of worship. In this respect I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice upon the lifting of the ban from Jehovah's Witnesses some time ago. I believe that was a proper course to take, and that by so doing he has exemplified to the rest of the world the fact that we do give to every individual the right to worship God as he chooses. However, there is another matter I should like to bring before the minister. I would ask him to consider what is done with certain members of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses when they refuse to take up arms. I think many hon. members have had correspondence similar to what I received the other day. I might explain, however, that that which I received has to do with certain members of Jehovah's Witnesses who had been taken into custody because they refused to take up arms. The correspondence enclosed certain sworn affidavits from interested people -perhaps other members of the same organization who had visited these men while in detention-and I believe these sworn statements will give some idea of how these men have been treated.
It is my intention to read certain paragraphs from these affidavits, and I appeal to the minister to do what he can in the matter.
War Appropriation

Justice

After all, we do want to see justice done in Canada. I shall not read the technical or legal part of this document, but only those paragraphs in which the statements are made. The following is from an affidavit signed by Elva F. Patzer of the city of Winnipeg.
I do solemnly declare that:
1.	On Sunday, April 23, 1944, I attended at the detention barracks at Fort Osborne barracks in M.D. No. 10 and there in the presence of a guard did interview my brother, Gordon Mark Morrow, above named who is there held in detention, undergoing ninety days detention, because of his conscientious objections to doing military service.
2.	At the time his face was swollen, and one hand was bruised across the back of the wrist.
3.	My said brother informed me that three members of the army had previously struck him with their sticks behind the ears, on his hands and wrists, and that they had in addition struck him with their fists.
4.	My said brother also informed me that previously some soldiers tied a loaded pack on his back, which was secured by a rope fastened around his throat, that he was then violently pushed around, and the rope cut off his breath. That he also had been abused by soldiers, who picked him up and threw him violently to the floor and then jumped on him with their knees. He afterwards complained of internal pain which bothered him greatly, and he believed that he had a broken rib or ribs.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is' of the same force and effect as if made under oath by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me. . .
And so on. This is signed by E. F. Patzer, and by J. F. Davidson, a barrister at law.
Then, there is another affidavit concerning another of these men-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member says he has another such affidavit. I wonder if he is under the impression that this has anything to do with the defence of Canada regulations. As I understand from the affidavit the hon. member read, the declarer attended at a military detention camp and received certain information from a person detained there. The Department of Justice has nothing to do with the administration of military district No 10 or of any other military district. If this affidavit covers something which arose in a detention camp of the army there would be nothing under the defence of Canada regulations which my department could do about it. There is nothing under those regulations to justify the maltreatment of any person.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry if I brought this up under the wrong department. Now that the minister draws it to my attention I believe he is right. When these men are picked up and interned they come under the Department of National Defence?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would assume that they would be men who were called up under the mobilization regulations administered by the Department of' Labour. After that they would appear before a board and would be either postponed or turned over to the military authorities, if they came within the regulations. At no stage would they be dealt with under the defence of Canada regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman-*
Mr.. HANSELL: I am not quite through.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am trying to help the hon. member if he will allow me.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: I should be pleased if the hon. member for York-Sunbury would help me out after I have finished. If what the minister has said is true, then the matter may have to be brought up under the Department of National Defence. I will not read the other affidavit; it is similar to the one I have read, but applies to another person.
I know that the minister does not want this sort of thing happening within military camps, even though it does not come under his department. All I ask him to do under the circumstances is to appeal to the Minister of National Defence to have this sort of thing stopped. It does not make any difference under what department it may come; it is not justice to persecute a man by physical torture because of his particular religious convictions. I appeal to the Minister of Justice to bring this thing to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and have it stopped immediately.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee, but first I should like to congratulate the minister upon having lifted the ban against those citizens who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. I think they are very sincere, but in my opinion they are on the wrong track. I was going to say something else, but I shall not. I think that action came a little late because there was a great deal of persecution, not prosecution, of these misguided people. I believe the minister is correct in suggesting that the cases before the committee are those of conscientious objectors who are under detention because of their unwillingness to serve in the army after having been drafted or called.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Or to take alternate service.

War Appropriation-Justice


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or to take alternate service, as we know is the case. I received two of these affidavits to-day and I read .them with a good deal of astonishment. I just cannot believe that these things can be true in Canada in this twentieth century. I may say to the minister that in law these affidavits are only hearsay evidence. They are not the affidavits of the persons detained; they are affidavits of those who interviewed the persons in the detention camp. As the lawyers say, that is hearsay, but inasmuch they have made these declarations on information and belief-that is the way we put it as lawyers-they call for some explanation on the part of the authorities, by way of refutation or investigation.
I should like to read one paragraph of one of these declarations, and then I am going to ask the minister to do what the hon. member for Macleod asked him to do. This is an affidavit by Stephie Klymuik, of Whyte-wold, Manitoba, being a declaration under the Canada Evidence Act. She visited a man by the name of Adam Remando at the detention barracks at Fort Osborne, military district No. 10, on April 16. The following is not his statement; it is what the declarer says was told to her, and she passes it on by way of opinion and presumably belief. The paragraph reads:
Remando then informed me he had been put on a bread and water diet for refusing to put on the ' uniform, that his clothes had been violently torn from him and destroyed, and he was forcibly dressed in a uniform and ordered to pick up a gun, which he refused to do.
Mark this:
That he was beaten and badly injured and put under an ice cold shower for twenty minutes, and that later on a gun was tied to his arm for several days.
I can scarcely believe that that took place in Canada, It sounds like what would happen under a third degree in New York where Mr. Walter Winchell comes from, the gentleman we heard about this afternoon. That is what they do down there under third degree, but surely it does not happen in Canada. I am going to ask the minister to call the attention of the Minister of National Defence to these allegations. If they are true, then third degree methods are being adopted by the army to force men into the home army. That is what it means. No matter how much we may object to conscientious objectors not doing their duty as citizens as we see it, I do not believe the people of Canada will for one moment tolerate this sort of treatment. I am going to give the department the benefit of the doubt to which they are entitled- this evidence does not comply with the best evidence rule.
These people are people whom we want to make into good Canadians if we can. They have been invited to this country. I presume they came here lawfully, that they had lawful entry. They are not criminals. For their conscience' sake they may be ready to undergo punishment, but certainly they should not have to suffer this punishment, if it is true as charged. Will the minister tell us upon what date the prohibition against Jehovah's Witnesses was lifted, how many prosecutions there were under the defence of Canada regulations, and where they were?


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I say that the
first of these two cases is not new either to my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or to myself. We got the first affidavit some few weeks ago, and because we though? the situation warranted it, the allegations being so grave, we turned it over to the Minister of National Defence. The second affidavit was treated similarly. Immediately I received it I sent it by messenger to the minister. I know that in the first instance some investigation has already taken place. Since this matter has been raised this afternoon, if the investigations have been completed the Minister of National Defence might inform the house what the situation is in this regard. I share the view of the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for York-Sunbury that if these allegations are true they are an exceedingly grave reflection on our country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are shocking.


Major James William Coldwell: -and upon the administration of. justice in this country. They should be thoroughly probed by the department and a report made to this house, and there should be no sort of inquiry held in secret. Charges as serious as these having been made in this house and read into the record, they should be dealt with openly and an inquiry held, with all the evidence taken, and the various parties to it provided with proper counsel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the presence of the subject and his counsel if he so wishes.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I mean. We presented this case 'to the Minister of National Defence some days ago. I see he is in his seat now, and I think it would be wise if he made a statement to the committee.


James Layton Ralston: I was just informed that there had been brought up in committee the matter of the treatment of a certain number of men belonging to the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, in Winnipeg. I am a little surprised that it should be brought up
War Appropriation-Justice

on this particular item under the Department of Justice, because it is a matter for the army and under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. I understand that affidavits have been read-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Statutory declarations.


James Layton Ralston: -which I have not heard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will send them over.


James Layton Ralston: I assume they are the affidavits which I myself received; and as I remember, all the affidavits are by somebody who said he was told by somebody else-


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are hearsay; I made that clear.


James Layton Ralston: -that certain things took place. I received a wire with regard to it from a relative of a man whose name, I think, is Morrow-


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: 
Major James William Coldwell: In view of the seriousness of these charges-we have had three of them recently, one at Windsor and two from Winnipeg


James Layton Ralston: I did not hear of two from Winnipeg.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, two from Winnipeg, I think.


James Layton Ralston: There are four men. My hon. friend means, the same group?


Major James William Coldwell: The same group of people, yes.


James Layton Ralston: I want to be sure what my hon. friend says. I am treating as one group the charges with regard to these four men.


Major James William Coldwell: There are two separate persons, and there was the case at Windsor. I do not know how these courts of inquiry are conducted, whether the military-

War Appropriation-Justice


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I should have taken up the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I realize how difficult it is for members of the committee and for myself to make distinctions between different departments, because at times the margin seems to be narrow. But although the statement which has just been made by the Minister of National Defence comes under his department, I think hon. members should remain within the orbit of the item before the committee; otherwise we shall never get anywhere. There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter, when the proper department is before the committee of the whole.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not want to disagree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I was just going to say something which I think should be said now; and may I suggest that technically I have the right to discuss anything which appears in these war appropriation estimates-anything. We have passed nothing. This is no bill with a schedule; we are dealing with a resolution. I can pick up this resolution at any point and deal with any department I wish, under the rules of this house. That is one of the reasons why, when this appropriation was coming down, I suggested it would facilitate business if we could have a bill and a schedule attached to the bill. I do not want to depart from any understanding we may have reached as to dealing with this resolution, but technically I would be well within my rights even though I spent the whole afternoon discussing subjects other than those pertaining to the Department of Justice.


James Layton Ralston: I hope my hon. friend is not invoking that, because there is an agreement as to the way we shall proceed.


Major James William Coldwell: I am talking of my right. I suggest to the minister that, in view of the nature of these charges, if these courts are held in secret, he would be well advised to have an open inquiry into these cases in order that all parties can be satisfied. I am not questioning in any way the integrity of the court of inquiry; I am suggesting to the minister that in the public interest and the interest of the department it would be well to consider the point I have raised.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point brought by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I know that he would be the last hon. member not to realize what is, I am sure, understood by the committee, that when a minister and
his officials attend on behalf of a particular department, it is understood that we will remain within the limits of that department.


Major James William Coldwell: I know that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am sure the hon. member will realize that it is impossible to have two or three ministers and half a dozen or more officials waiting around all the time, on one particular item.


Mr. FAIR:: I had not intended to discuss the question which has just been brought up. I am not a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. There has been a good deal of discussion of the real reason why they were banned, and I think the Minister of Justice should make a statement on the matter which would satisfy the curiosity of the country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot satisfy the hon. member on that point. When I became Minister of Justice I found certain defence of Canada regulations which had been adopted by the governor in council, and which had been before a committee of the house and had been approved thereby. I had no choice but to apply them until such time as they were modified, and on recommendation I made in October, 1943, the ban was lifted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many prosecutions had taken place against Jehovah's Witnesses up to that period?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There had been no prosecutions by the Department of Justice against Jehovah's Witnesses up to that period. Such prosecutions as had been instituted had been instituted by the attorneys general of the provinces or under their control, applying the defence of Canada regulations as part of the law of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many had been carried out at the instigation of the Department of Justice?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No prosecutions had been instituted at the instigation of the department against any persons for being members of Jehovah's Witnesses.


Robert Fair: May I ask whether all restrictions imposed upon Jehovah's Witnesses have been lifted, or whether only the right to meet at their services has been restored?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Some time over a year ago there had been a modification of the regulations to the effect that no one would commit an offence by attending a meeting for the purpose of religious worship. In October, 1943, regulation 39(c) was amended by striking therefrom the names of "the
War Appropriation-Justice

following organizations", and among them was the name of Jehovah's Witnesses. So that section 39(c) no longer applies in any way to the persons known as Jehovah's Witnesses.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Jehovah's Witnesses
have a number of subsidiary organizations such as the Watch Tower publishing company and some others. I have been informed that the literature of the organization is still banned. I have also been told-I was going to try to verify this before, but since the matter is now under consideration I will mention it, without any definite knowledge of the question -that all literature emanating from the Watch Tower publishing company is automatically banned from Canada, and that on one occasion not long ago a shipment of Holy Bibles, the King James authorized version, was prohibited from entering this country simply because these bibles bore the name of the publisher. I was told that there was no commentary, nothing but the King James authorized edition of the bible, published by the Watch Tower publishing company, and because it was published by this organization the shipment was prohibited. I do not know whether that is true. Is it true?


Colin William George Gibson: That is correct, yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were they imported from London?


Colin William George Gibson: No; from the United States.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The minister says it is true. I think there should be an easement of that provision at once. I do not think anything should be allowed to interfere with the importation of the Holy Bible into this country, even when it is published by the Watch Tower publishing company. I cannot see that it would interfere with the war effort of the country or undermine the principles of any of our people, to have the bible brought into the country even when it bears the imprint	of any publishing	house,	which
happens to be in this intance the Watch Tower company.


Colin William George Gibson: The money goes to a prohibited organization. That is the reason.
Mr.	COLDWELL:	The	ban	against
Jehovah's Witnesses-


Colin William George Gibson: I am speaking of the
Watch Tower publishing company.
Mr.	COLDWELL:	The	ban	againstJehovah's Witnesses is	lifted.	If the	parent
organization is legal, why should a subsidiary be considered illegal and prohibited?


Alfred Henry Bence: The defence of Canada regulations committee two years ago recommended lifting the ban from Jehovah's Witnesses and that included the subsidiary organizations referred to, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and some others. The ban was lifted from Jehovah's Witnesses but not from these societies or organizations through which Jehovah's Witnesses hold their property. This situation exists in my city, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals, through the medium of an incorporated society which is banned, own a hall. They are forced into the position where they must go and rent, from the custodian of enemy property, the very hall which they themselves bought with their own money through the medium of this organization which is still banned. I suggest that the administration ought to reconsider the position, because it leaves the matter in an anomalous state. As a matter of fact, first of all, the custodian refused to rent to these Jehovah's Witnesses, though eventually he did. I suggest that the halls should be returned to those who put their money into them.


Ernest George Hansell: This whole subject
becomes very much involved when one digs deep into it. It might be supposed that because the Minister of Justice has lifted the ban from Jehovah's Witnesses, therefore they should be allowed to go around and do-whatever they wish. I do not agree with that position. I am not speaking for my group, because this is not a party matter. It is a matter of what appeals to one's own intelligence and common sense. I can quite understand that the ban might be lifted from a religious organization for the purpose of giving them the right of freedom of worship, and yet it might not be lifted from a certain publication which might teach things that are contrary to peace, order and good government. I was tempted to ask, when the member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke about bibles, whether there were any comments on them.


Major James William Coldwell: None.


Ernest George Hansell: I am told that the funds were to be paid to an organization that is still under the ban. I fancy that means that if the Jehovah's Witnesses had ordered bibles from some other publishing house those bibles would have come in all right. That, I suppose, would be the answer. I sympathize with the minister to this extent, that it is difficult to draw the line between what might constitute freedom of worship and what might be taught in certain religious meetings. I believe that people should be free to assemble and worship God according to their conscience.

War Appropriation-Justice
The scriptures, of course, are subject to a variety of interpretations. My interpretation is that the scriptures teach that we must be subject to the powers that are ordained of God to rule the nations. You cannot very well say, "I will disobey the law of the land," and at the same time say, "I will obey the law of God"; because to my mind to obey God is to obey a law of the land. It is an exacting position. I am an advocate of lifting the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses. I am a great advocate of freedom of worship, but I am not an advocate of permitting anyone to go and do and teach whatever they wish. They may teach truth and truth alone. There again you come up against this difficulty: what one may regard as truth in the bible may not be regarded as a proper interpretation by someone else. If I had time, probably I could convince certain people, but then, the old adage comes in, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I happened to be reading my bible yesterday and I came to a very important passage of scripture which I think is germane to this discussion. It may seem strange to some that I should read the bible in this connection. May I quote just a part of the thirteenth chapter of Romans:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
We may not like them. I certainly do not like the Liberal government.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: You do not think they are ordained of God.


Colin William George Gibson: No, of the people.


Ernest George Hansell: In the development of national affairs I suppose some people have to govern Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Even if it happens to be Liberal.


Ernest George Hansell: Then the scripture goes on-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I like to hear about the Good Book, but I do not just see how it comes under the present discussion, an item having to do with the Department of Justice. Surely we should come down to earth once in a while and keep to the particular item before us.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you will not prevent me from reading one or two passages. May I say, speaking on
behalf of the minister, that I realize these things are exacting and quite a responsibility. The scriptures continue:
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
The principle is this. Governments attempt to pass laws for the good and the welfare of the people; therefore we should be subject to those laws. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that I had better bring that out because it does not follow that just because the ban is lifted from an organization they can go ahead and do whatever they wish.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does that apply to
Protestants and Catholics .as well?


Ernest George Hansell: It applies to everyone. I belong to a non-denominational church, but I am quite certain that if I went out and preached something that was going to incite a revolution I would not blame the minister if he put me in gaol.
May I add another word? Some of us receive considerable correspondence over these things. It seems that when one brings up a matter in parliament it means additional work for him, because people read it and then he gets a lot of letters. They seem to think the more you do the more you can do. Some of us have received quite a few letters in regard to the authorities not recognizing those who are said to be ordained by Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not going to criticize that; I mention it only in passing, for the purpose of examination. For instance, an ordained minister is exempt from military service, but the mobilization board does not recognize the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I have received a lot of correspondence along that line. I bring it to the attention of the minister so that he may know how the position stands. It can be looked into, but it does not matter to me what decision is made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does that not arise from a case that was heard in British Columbia, the appeal of which is now. pending?


Ernest George Hansell: I could not answer the hon. member's question. I am not informed in that respect.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think we should allow the statements of the hon. member for Macleod to go by without some comment. I think the age-old principle of democracy is freedom of thought, freedom of association and freedom to think and teach on matters
War Appropriation-Justice

of religion as one may feel impelled to think and to teach. I am not a member of any of those unorthodox sects. I happen to belong to one of the very orthodox Protestant communions, but at the same time I feel that the principle which is being challenged of allowing the free distribution of tracts does strike at the very heart of our religious freedom and our conception of democratic institutions.
I was pretty well schooled years ago in the writings of John Milton, and I have never forgotten his "Areopagitica", the plea for the freedom of the press, the plea for the freedom of the right of a man to issue a tract on any particular subject, no matter how distasteful that subject may be to the powers that be. That principle is sound, and is exemplified in the long struggle for the freedom of the press, the freedom of the sect, if you like, to preach and to teach its doctrines which to-day may be unorthodox but which to-morrow may become very orthodox indeed. I always remember the story of two famous bishops. One asked the other how he defined orthodoxy and heterodoxy. He said: "Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is the other fellow's doxy." That is precisely what I think we have to bear in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that a statement is due from the minister with regard to the whole situation respecting the defence of Canada regulations. In the main those regulations went through the committee in 1940 at a time when conditions were most serious, and the question of survival as a nation and as an empire was paramount in our thoughts. Great Britain has consistently followed the course of removing those encroachments on democratic rights with the gradual dissipation of the danger to the state. I think that the time has come when these regulations as a whole should be reconsidered. In the past we have had committees from year to year on defence of Canada regulations; but unfortunately the recommendations of those committees, composed of outstanding members of the House of Commons, have not been accepted by the minister. When we come to discuss the question of the freedoms we see that freedom of religion is still not completely axistent when we find that the recommendations of the committee have not been implemented. The committee recommended in 1943 that the ban against Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students' Association and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Incorporated should be removed. There can be only one reason for the maintenance of these regulations interfering with religious bodies-that is, the safety of the 
state. I believe there have been some five hundred prosecutions of Jehovah's Witnesses, none of which had to do with subversive activities, the entire offence being that of belonging to an organization banned under the defence of Canada regulations.
What excuse is there for interfering with these people receiving the Holy Bible, regardless of by whom it is published? What is there subversive in their teaching doctrines which the rest of us do not accept, as long as the practice of those doctrines does not interfere with the safety of the state? Why is it that the recommendations of the committee of this house have not been accepted in their entirety by the minister? I ask him to deal specifically with this matter; for if we as members of the House of Commons accept without complaint the principle of interference with the freedom of religion we deny the democracy for which we as a country and empire fight. Britain does not deny these people their rights. The United States does not deny them; Australia does not deny them. Why does this government continue to keep these organizations on the banned list? These are matters that must concern hon. members regardless of party allegiance in this house. I think the time has come when the minister should place the whole story before the house and the country. Why are these organizations banned? Why have they not the right enjoyed by all other church organizations to distribute the literature printed by their own corporations? The ban has been removed, it is said. That is theoretical only, unless the ban is lifted from the organizations which disseminate the literature which these people preach. I do not agree with their principles; I have no appreciation of the stand they take in this war, but I cannot understand how the government may assume to believe in freedom of religion and still deny these people their rights. It may be because of the fact that they do not exercise the franchise, and that in this sense they are not true citizens. In any ease I think the time has come for the minister to tell us the story, to say what are the reasons for the denial to these people of the opportunity to disseminate their own literature; particularly if it is correct, as I believe it is, that not one case of subversive activities has been brought home to these people.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I would point out that the head office of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is in London, England. Their publications are not banned there; why should they be banned in Canada? I should like an answer from the minister.


Mr. ROSE:: Mr. Chairman-

TFar Appropriation-Justice


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is a very reasonable request.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Cartier has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely we are
entitled to an answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am asking this committee to vote the sum of $30,000 for the expenses of the advisory committees which deal with the cases of the internees; that is all I am asking.
Mr. HANSON (York-SunbupO : Well, now, the minister won't get away with that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The minister is not trying to get away with anything. If it pleases this committee to travel over the field of war activities since the beginning of the war, that is its privilege until the chairman sees fit to intervene, but so' far as I am concerned I am going to try to stick to the matters with which I have to deal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister knows as well as I know and as every other member of this committee knows that this is the only item in this war appropriation resolution under which we can discuss the defence of Canada regulations. The fact that this item is for payment of the expenses of the advisory committees does not alter the situation at all; we have a right to know the facts; and the minister ought not, I say with respect-because I have great respect for him- to take the attitude he is taking to-day, that he wishes to deal only with the question of the voting of the money to pay these advisory committees. There are people in this country who want to know why these regulations have not been relaxed, in view of the fact, as stated by my colleague from Lake Centre, that the danger to the state is no longer as threatening as it was. Why should not these regulations be relaxed? I quite appreciate that in the early days of the war, when people were on edge, when there was an imminent threat of invasion, when people had a different attitude towards this sort of thing, there should be strict rules against anything that might be subversive. That day is past. I had the pleasure of sitting in at a meeting of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations when Sir Norman Birkett appeared before the committee and gave a wonderful exposition of the attitude of the British people and of the committees over there in relation to all classes in the community, including communists, if you will. Why should Canada's attitude be so strict as compared with the
attitude of Britain and other countries I could mention?
While I am on my feet I should like to
know if it is open to us as members of this committee to ask about individual cases of internees who have been released, and the reasons therefor. I will make just one allusion; I refer to the case of Mr. Camillien Houde, who is interned in a community not very far from where I live. The story in that part of the country is that he was offered his release under certain conditions, with which he refused to comply. So far as I am concerned that is hearsay; I do not make any allegations or charges. It may not be open to give me the facts; I realize that they have to be treated with circumspection and that the reports of these advisory committees should be and are in the main secret. We are not very far apart on that principle, but statements are going round the country that the government is trying through these committees to drive bargains with certain gentlemen, and the country ought to know if that is true. If not, it should be denied and the position set at rest. But the minister must tell us what changes have been made in the defence of Canada regulations, what are contemplated to be made, and what is the policy of the government. Do they intend to relax these regulations, and in what direction?


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the hon member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has just referred to the detention of Mr. Camillien Houde, former mayor of Montreal and member of the Quebec legislature. Would the minister say whether he is detained under the defence of Canada regulations or under the mobilization act regulations and for what offence? Is the infraction related to one or the other of the above mentioned regulations? I do not intend to defend Mr. Camillien Houde in particular, but a principle is involved. Being a British subject, he is entitled to fair play as any other British citizen. If he has committed an offence, let him be tried and, if found guilty, condemned to a penalty; but he is entitled to know whether he is to be held indefinitely, without being informed of the penalty he has incurred. I believe the public is entitled to be informed by the minister of the offence committed, the penalty incurred and of whether or not his detention is for an indefinite period.
(Text)


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Cartier has the floor.
War Appropriation-Justice


Donat Raymond: No; I want an answer. I have asked questions of the Minister of Justice, and I am entitled to an answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A great many questions have been asked, some of which concern the defence of Canada regulations. Others have been dealt with by the Minister of National Defence. It is difficult to determine at what point members in the committee wish an answer that would be pertinent to the item before the committee, and at what point they merely desire to air some grievances with which I am not concerned. If it is proper for me to do so, I shall endeavour to deal with some of the matters relating to the defence of Canada regulations. However I should like to hear what other members of the committee wish to say on that point.
Perhaps I can take up the questions in reverse order to that in which they have been asked. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie wants to know under what regulations Mr. Camillien Houde was interned. My answer is that he was interned under regulation 21 of the defence of Canada regulations. The hon. member wants to know what infraction had been committed. Internment is not punishment for having committed an infraction. Internment is an order made by the Minister of Justice, in the exercise of the confidence the house has placed in him, to restrict the liberties of an individual, if he is satisfied it is necessary so to do, with a view to preventing that individual from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state. The order against Mr. Camillien Houde was made because Mr. Houde was acting in a manner which the Minister of Justice then felt constituted something 'prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state. Mr. Camillien Houde was recommending to the public, in a part of this country in which he felt he had support, that there be refusal to comply with national registration regulations. It was felt that that ' was prejudicial to the safety of the state, and for that reason his internment was ordered. For a long time he was not disposed to ask to have his case reviewed by an advisory board under the authority of the defence of Canada regulations. However, on May 10, 1943, he requested that he be given a hearing. This letter was received by the Department of Justice on May 15, and arrangements were made immediately to have an advisory committee meet and proceed to Fredericton, not only because Mr. Houde had asked to be heard, but because at that time there was a number of applications sufficient to warrant the holding of sittings of the advisory board at that point.
[The Chairman.]
Mr. Houde came before the board at Fredericton in the course of these hearings on May 28 and 29, 1943. As a result of questions put by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, it has already been communicated to the house that in the course of its inquiry the committee had to know what Mr. Houde's present dispositions were, and asked him if he would be prepared to sign the usual form of undertaking signed by a great many of those released from internment. This is an undertaking to abide by the laws of Canada, and to do nothing to interfere with the prosecution of Canada's war effort. He asked that a copy of the usual conditions be delivered to him, and said that he would answer the next day. Next day he informed the committee that he was not disposed to sign anything. Thereupon a report was made to the Minister of Justice recommending that his detention be continued.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it a condition precedent to release that an internee shall sign this undertaking?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is not a condition precedent to release. Members of the advisory committee try to make such investigation as will convince them as to whether if he were released the internee would be apt to act in a manner prejudicial to the safety of the state. On their own motion, having received no suggestion whatsoever, from the Department of Justice, they have adopted the procedure of saying to the individual, "Are you sincere in your statement that you are disposed to do everything within your power, with the exception of enrolling in the army, or taking part in the activities of the active army, to further Canada's war effort?" This is asked of a person of enemy origin. A great many of them have declared that they were so disposed. Then they are asked, "Are you so seriously disposed to that end that you would be willing to sign an undertaking to that effect?" A great many have said that they were. And it is after having agreed to sign such an undertaking that in many cases recommendations for release are made, the advisory board holding the view that the individual would not be a danger to the safety of the state.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In practice it is a condition precedent-if not in theory.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not go so far as to say that in practice it is a condition precedent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has any man been released who did not sign?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.

War Appropriation-Justice


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is the answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes, there were
releases before this practice was adopted. But there has been no recommendation to release a person who refused, or who said he was not disposed to sign such an undertaking. If a person were not disposed to sign an undertaking of the kind, such decision evidently influenced the judgment of members of the advisory board, and there was no recommendation for release.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is to show his bona fides.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, to show his bona fides. Then, in November, 1943, Mr. Houde wrote a letter to Joseph Jean, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice, in which he indicated he would be prepared to sign an undertaking. This letter was communicated to me. I told Mr. Jean that was not the regular way of communicating with the Department of Justice; that if Mr. Houde had any communication to address to that department he should address it to the department and not to a member of parliament who happens to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice.
I assume that he was given that kind of answer. On December 11 Mr. Houde wrote the deputy minister of the department saying that he was prepared to sign the kind of undertaking that had been submitted to him when the advisory committee had considered his case in May. A reply was made to him that arrangements were being made to have his file placed before the. advisory committee which was to visit Fredericton some time in January, and that he might make another appearance before them and allow them to report on the probability or otherwise of his behaving in such manner as would not interfere with the prosecution of our war effort.
Under date of January 10 Mr. Houde wrote the deputy minister of justice that he did not want any further hearing, and a copy of that letter was tabled in this house. Subsequently an hon. member of this house came to see me and said that Mr. Houde, as was stated in this letter of which a copy was tabled, had expressed the view that he had been interned by order in council and that he was going to come out through the big door and there would have to be an order in council passed to let him out. I explained to the hon. member that he 'was quite mistaken; that Mr. Houde had been treated like any other Canadian or resident of Canada under the defence of Canada regulations; that an order had been made by the Minister of Justice, and if he wanted that order reconsidered-it had been reconsidered once-it could be reconsidered again. He was told that there could not be any special procedure for Mr. Houde, and that unless and until a recommendation was made for his release in conformity with the regulations he would unfortunately have to stay in internment.
I am sorry to take up so much time with this, but apparently there has been a great deal of public interest focussed on this matter and it p'erhaps justifies the time I am taking. On March 19, 1944, Mr. Houde wrote as follows:
Mr. Liguori Lacombe, the federal member for the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains, has informed me in a letter dated the 7 th instant, of an interview that he has had with the Minister of Justice concerning the early termination of my detention.
Following that interview he advises me to apply for a revision of my case, the reason offered being that I was misinformed when in my last letter to your department I stated that I had been interned by an order in council.
Considering the untiring efforts of Mr. Laeom.be on my behalf I readily comply with what, under the circumstances, seems to be a reasonable request, and I hereby apply for such a revision.
Would you kindly inform me, at your earliest convenience, of any decision in this matter, and oblige.
Thereupon the deputy minister replied to Mr. Houde as follows:
I have discussed with the minister your letter of March 19.
It is quite true that Mr. Liguori Lacombe did go to see the minister and his object in doing so was probably to endeavour to obtain an early termination of your detention. I do not know what information Mr. Lacombe wrote you, but the minister tells me that his only statement to Mr. Lacombe was that you were entirely mistaken in your previous letter in stating that you had been interned by an order in council; he pointed out that you had in fact been interned by virtue of an order made by the Minister of Justice under the defence of Canada regulations and that if and when you were released it would have to be in conformity with the procedure set up by these regulations.
In your last letter you "apply for a revision of my ease." Am I to take it from this letter that it is an application for a hearing before an advisory committee operating under the regulations? It is intended to have such a committee sit again at Fredericton during the month of May, and if it is your desire to have a hearing before that committee please let me know so that definite consideration can be given to such an application.
On April 17 Mr. Houde replied to the deputy minister as follows:
In answer to your letter of the 28th last I hereby apply for a revision of my case under the defence of Canada regulations before an advisory committee operating under said regulations.
For your information I beg to state that Mr. Lacombe. in his letter to me, has simply suggested that I should ask for a revision of my case, and I thought it best in my letter to you to use the same phraseology.
War Appropriation-Justice

Whatever his reason' may have been, on April 17 he asked that his case be reviewed by an advisory committee under the defence of Canada regulations. A committee set up under the defence of Canada regulations is to proceed shortly to Fredericton to consider a number of applications for rehearing; Mr. Houde's file is being handed to that committee, and he will be accorded a rehearing at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
Mr. Houde up to date.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That brings the matter up to date. This was not punishment for an offence; it was something done to prevent him from acting in a manner which it was felt would be prejudicial to the interests of the state. Since he has persisted in that attitude up to the present time, no committee has taken upon itself to recommend that he be released.


Donat Raymond: I must say that I am far from satisfied with the explanation given by the minister. We have laws in this country; we have the criminal code and we have other regulations. If a man does not comply with the law, he is prosecuted; if he is convicted there is a penalty, but he knows wha't to expect. All I am asking for Camillien Houde is that he be given the same treatment as is given to any other British subject, nothing more.
At the beginning of his explanation the minister said that Mr. Houde had been interned because he had not complied with the regulations of the mobilization act. Then at the end of his explanation I was under the impression that he said Mr. Houde had not complied with the defence of Canada regulations. In either case there is a penalty, and he should know to what penalty he is exposed. When a man refuses to comply with the regulations of the mobilization act he is prosecuted before a criminal court. He may be found guilty, but he should not be asked to sign a document 3uch as Mr. Houde was asked to sign. I think it is unfair to say that as long as Mr. Camillien Houde refuses to register in accordance with the mobilization act he will not be released unless he signs some kind of document. The defence of Canada regulations state:
(Translation):
63. (1) Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of these regulations, or any order, rule, by-law, or direction, made or given under any of these regulations, shall be guilty of an offence against that regulation.
(2) Where no specific penalty is provided, such person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars,
[ Mr. St. Laurent.l
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to both fine and imprisonment; but such person may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada or of the province, be prosecuted upon indictment, and if convicted shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both fine and imprisonment.
It states distinctly that there is no other penalty. When a man has committed an infraction of the defence of Canada regulations he is prosecuted in the courts and condemned to a fine or imprisonment. In the case of Camillien Houde, he has been there for the last four years. He has not committed any other offence than have people who have been brought before the courts of this country in every province because they have refused to comply with the regulations under the mobilization act, that is, refused to register. That is the infraction which he has committed, and although he has been in detention for four years he is still detained and is to be kept in detention until he signs an agreement according to the pleasure of the Minister of Justice. In my opinion this is entirely unfair. I believe the public is very much interested, because Mr. Houde has not received the treatment which is guaranteed to any ordinary citizen of this country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry that the hon. member is not satisfied with the explanation, but the fact is that Mr. Houde was not interned because he refused to comply with the national registration regulations; he was interned because he was taking an attitude to encourage people over whom he had influence not to comply with the regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He signed a written statement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He signed a statement to that effect, advising them not to comply with that provision of the law; and so long as this country is at war, and so long as I have the responsibility of administering the defence of Canada regulations, I shall not feel it possible to consider that such conduct is not prejudicial to the safety of the state.
Now, to deal with other matters which were raised in connection with the defence of Canada regulations.


Donat Raymond: I understand that Tim Buck has been released. Was he obliged to sign any statement before he was released?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No one was obliged to sign any statement; but before Mr. Tim Buck was released he did declare that it was his intention to comply with the laws and regulations of Canada and to contribute to

War Appropriation-Justice
the best of his ability to Canada's war effort. As an evidence of his good faith he signed a statement to that effect; it was after he had stated his willingness to sign such a statement that an advisory committee recommended to the Department of Justice that he be released, and it was only after he had done so that he was released.


Donat Raymond: I understand that Mr. Houde has written a letter to Mr. Jean to that effect.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Jean is not an advisory committee under the defence of Canada regulations, and Mr. Camillien Houde is not going to be treated any differently from any other resident of Canada who was interned under the defence of Canada regulations.


Donat Raymond: But Tim Buck did not send his statement to an advisory committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Tim Buck was heard before an advisory committee; it was before an advisory committee that he made that statement, and it was as agreed before an advisory committee that he signed his undertaking in writing. Thereafter the recommendation of the committee was made to the Department of Justice and an order for release was signed, as recommended.


Mr. GILLIS:: Was Mr. Tim Buck interned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He surrendered for internment and was interned, and immediately afterwards went before an advisory committee and succeeded in convincing the committee that it should report that his being at large at this time would not endanger the safety of the state.


Clarence Gillis: What was the duration of the internment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Less than a month.


Mr. SLAGHT:: How long did he hide from the police?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From some time in June, 1940, until some time in, I think it was August, 1942. I can get the exact date if the hon. member is interested.
A further question was with respect to the possible danger to the safety of the state in any publications emanating from associations connected with Jehovah's Witnesses, with respect to which the ban was not lifted at the time that it was withdrawn from the organization itself. The reason for that is that, in my view of the defence of Canada regulationsand I am the one who has to take the responsibility of their application-it is contrary to the policy of the state, contrary to the public interest, that the doctrine of not being bound by man-made laws should be taught. There were two points principally upon which publications emanating from this organization were held to be contrary to the public interest and the safety of the state. One, which is very similar to the attitude for which Mr. Houde is still interned, was that man-made laws need not be complied with. The second point was the propaganda to the effect that one could be an ordained minister of Jehovah's Witnesses by making an individual compact with the Almighty, that by doing so one became an ordained minister and not subject to the mobilization regulations. That is something which I look upon as contrary to the policy which this state has to maintain in war time. It cannot be left to the individual to say, "I have by consecrating myself to the Almighty made myself an ordained minister, and thus brought myself within the exceptions provided by the mobilization regulations." Some of the publications which emanate from these associated organizations-I am sorry I cannot say whether the head office is in London, England, but I was under the impression that it is a United States organization- are unnecessary to any of the persons who in good faith assume to satisfy their conscience by the form of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, to enable them to worship the Almighty in the manner in which they see fit, and they contain material the propagation of which I look upon as contrary to the policy this state has to follow under war conditions.
Freedom to think and to teach is fully recognized, provided what is taught is not in itself subversive. But it is subversive of our order at the present time to teach that individuals are not bound by any man-made laws. It is subversive to teach that any young man can by this private pact bring himself outside the regulations which are required for the purpose of military service in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: By the minister's definition it is subversive to state that one is not bound by man-made laws. Does he set up a different definition of what is subversive from that accepted by Great Britain, the United States and Australia? If so, why?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps I should not have used the word "subversive". I should have said, contrary to the policy which this state must enforce in war time.


John George Diefenbaker: Why are we different from these other countries?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is subversive.
War Appropriation-Justice

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know what the situation is in those countries. The hon. member said there had been a great many prosecutions of persons who were Jehovah's Witnesses. I know there were a large number of prosecutions for border offences of persons who- happened to be Jehovah's Witnesses, because, being Jehovah's Witnesses, they felt they could disregard man-made laws and go into the United States and attend some sort of religious meeting over there, and they were prosecuted for violation of border-crossing regulations. That is something which, in my view, manifests no interference whatsoever with liberty of conscience. There may be a great many people in this country or elsewhere who would feel it would satisfy their conscience to make certain pilgrimages to places which are now not accessible and which would require them to go out of this country, but they would not be allowed to proceed out of this country unless they complied with the regulations set up in that behalf.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there were prosecutions for delivering tracts in the county of Beauee-a most disgraceful thing.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, I know. But there are 11,500,000 Canadians; they are not all in the Department of Justice and I cannot be held responsible for errors that may be committed elsewhere. This matter was raised at the last session and I stated frankly that I had seen these tracts and they were extracts from the French edition of the Bible published over the name of l'abbe Crampon, which is a well recognized edition that is used by Roman Catholics of the French language, and there did not seem to be anything else but that. It certainly was a mistake to prosecute anyone for distributing copies of pages of the bible if there was nothing more. There have been overzealous officials in all administrations, and that was certainly something that should not have been done. I may say that it was one of the reasons which made it appear necessary to me to go farther than had first been done in respect of Jehovah's Witnesses.
My first recommendation had been a modification which would allow them to exercise their religion in any way they saw fit; but the fact that they remained banned was something which possibly encouraged overzealous prosecutions that were taking place in different parts of Canada, and I felt, that because of that it would be better to remove the ban in the defence of Canada regulations, and that, if prosecutions had to be instituted, to institute them under the criminal code. It was for that reason that it was done. But, as one hon. member has pointed out in this

house, it has created among some the impression that now anything which a person who calls himself a Jehovah's Witness does is legal, simply because the ban has been lifted. That of course is not seriously contended anywhere, and it is an impression which is no more justified than was the impression that because Jehovah's Witnesses distributed extracts from the bible they were doing something illegal.
The other matters dealt with the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in military camps. I am sure every hon. member knows that the Minister of National Defence will not tolerate anything of that kind in the camps under his jurisdiction, and whenever anything of the kind is brought to his attention it is carefully inquired into and if what is stated on hearsay evidence is to be disproved it will be disproved. If it turns out that there is some justification in fact for any part of it, the parties responsible will be severely dealt with.
Other matters that were raised had to do with the releasing from internment of Lorimer, Farr and Schneider. John Lorimer and Joseph Farr had been interned in June, 1940, under regulation 21 of the defence of Canada regulations as partisans of the National Unity party of which Adrien Arcand, who is still interned, was the recognized leader. Both Lorimer and Farr had had some connection with it. Lorimer was alleged to have held office -as assistant treasurer and Farr was an officer of the organization. He was an organizer. Lorimer had a hearing before Mr. Justice Fortier in 1940; after that hearing it was recommended that his detention should be continued, and it was continued. He had a further hearing before a three-man committee in July, 1942. That committee, after considering all the angles of the case, recommended that he be released. He had succeeded in convincing the committee that he had had little to do with the organization, that he had manifested, even while interned, that he was in full sympathy with the war effort of this country and of the allies, and that he was ready to do everything in his -power to further the war effort to the united nations. He had stated that he was quite willing to put his signature to a declaration to that effect, and as a matter of fact he did. They recommended that he be released and he was released on September 1, 1942. One of the conditions of his release was that he should report monthly to the R.C.M.P. and he has been doing so. They have kept in touch with him since; he seems to be the sort of person who found it was at least uncomfortable to have been in the limelight; he wanted to drop back into his original obscurity and he has dropped back.

War Appropriation-Justice


Gordon Graydon: He wanted to go back into private life, did he?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Apart from his
monthly reports, nothing further has been heard about him since. Farr bad been interned at the same time. He had a hearing in December, 1940, before Mr. Justice Fortier; continuation of his detention had been recommended and it was continued.
In August, 1942, he was again heard before the same committee that heard Lorimer. At that time he was not able to convince the committee that he was then in a frame of mind where his activities would no longer be a threat to the safety of the state. They recommended that his detention be continued. Shortly afterwards he got into very serious difficulties with the nazi elements in the camp and was pretty severely beaten up on several occasions because of the attitude he was expressing in the camp owing to his consideration for the cause of the allied nations. He had a new hearing in July, 1943, and in October, 1943. After the committee obtained further information about him and became convinced-at least so they certified-that his being at liberty at that time would in no way endanger the safety of the state, he also having signed an undertaking to that effect, and having been informed that he would be required to report monthly to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he was released. He also has been reporting monthly since that time, and other than from his report we have heard nothing about him. He has dropped back into private life. The information we have is that he will never again be in with the kind of party that he belonged to at the time he was interned. One of those releases was made in September, 1942, and the other one in October, 1943.
Some weeks ago I think the PM newspaper heard that these men had been released and compared what had taken place here with the stir that had been occasioned by the release of one Mr. Mosley in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact these men had dropped back into private life here and had behaved themselves, and no one connected with either the police or in any other connection had found that any inconvenience to the safety or well-being of the state had resulted. Unless and until something takes place which would convince me that it would be my duty, for the protection of the state, to re-intern them, I would certainly not do so. I have received a large number of communications from various parts of the country requesting that these men be re-intemed and that an undertaking be given that they will
remain interned for the duration of the war. I replied that it seemed to me to be a most undemocratic suggestion to make; that no one could or should be detained unless there was such evidence as convinced the Minister of Justice that it was necessary to do so to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or to the safety of the state. And to suggest, because one was called Lorimer and the other Farr, that they be re-interned and that an undertaking be given that they would remain interned for the duration was not a procedure that I could contemplate as a proper one.
I may say right here that no one in the Department of Justice makes any suggestion whatsoever to the members of these committees, each one of which is presided over by a judge, as to what attitude they shall take. There has been no change of policy; there has been a change in conditions. In June, 1940, when it became apparent that there had been fifth-column activity to the extent which was revealed by the tactics in the countries which were overrun, all hon. members remember that there was considerable nervousness in this country and that it was easy for any one who happened to be in the office of the Minister of Justice at that time to come to the conclusion that it might be necessary to order such-and-so for the safety of the state. Large numbers of residents of Canada of German and Italian origin were then interned and since that time a great many of them have been having their individual cases carefully considered and have been released. I do not think a mistake was made in interning them. I think one has to look back to the conditions which existed at that time, and at that time the condition was so urgent that there was no opportunity to examine in advance with the care that has been given to the individual cases since. The Minister of Justice could not afford to take any risks at that time. Fortunately, since that time the situation has considerably improved and something which made the change in the attitude of the Department of Justice to these questions is the entry of the United States into the war. The cooperation which has existed since that time between the R.C.M.P. and the F.B.I. is such that as to the facts and the probabilities a different impression has been created.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question before he passes on to the next subject? Will he tell us how many residents of Canada are still interned and how many were released during the last year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the figure I was looking for. There are still over 300 persons other than persons of Japanese origin.
War Appropriation-Justice
COMMONS [DOT]
I segregated them because the Japanese situation is one that arose at a later date and has been dealt with in a separate compartment.


Major James William Coldwell: Does that include all
persons of enemy nationality other than Japanese?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are about 160 British subjects who are still interned; that is, British subjects by birth or by naturalization.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Is it broken down as to
racial origin?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	There are held as
enemy aliens under regulation 25, 141 of German origin. There are held under regulation 21, as residents of Canada, being British subjects by birth and naturalization, but of German racial origin, 120; of Italian racial origin, 2; of Italian origin, naturalized, 4; others, principally because of their connections with this unity national party, 32.


Mr. STIRLING:: No Austrians or Hungarians?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	They have been
grouped with the Germans.
There was one other case about which explanations were asked; that was the case of A. N. Schneider. As has been stated, this man was first detained in September, 1939, and released in December of the same year. His release, I understand, was the cause of many protests to the department at that time. In June, 1940, when these orders for detention were being issued against a large number of residents of Canada of German and Italian origin, he was again included and interned. He had a hearing before an advisory committee in September, 1942, and the committee recommended continued detention. He was heard again in February, 1944, at which time he was able to convince the advisory committee, which is one that has been functioning since I came into the department, which has had a great deal of experience, to which no suggestion has ever been made by the government, and with respect to which I would resent any suggestion being made by the Department of Justice-


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister free to give the personnel of that committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. The chairman is His Honour Judge M. A. Miller; the members of the committee are Mr. Robert Taschereau, K.C., former chairman of the workmen's compensation board of the province of Quebec, and Mr. W. M. Dickson, former deputy minister of labour. That committee made a report in

February, 1944, recommending that this man be released, and the file and recommendation came before me. Of course in many of these cases it would be convenient to be able to give the facts; but it has been felt that it would be improper to give them in one case and refuse to give them in another. For that reason when the question was put by the hon. member for Saskatoon City it was felt that all we could say were the facts which were known. Certainly it does not make a man a safe person to have at large in the country because he happens to have two nephews in the armed forces overseas or because he happens to have a son who has not reached the age when he can enter the army but who has entered the reserve cadet group in his locality. But those facts were notorious; and together with other facts which were brought out in the evidence before the committee they convinced the committee that this man was not now, if ever he had been, a nazi sympathizer, and that it would not be a danger to the security of the state to allow him to be released. Here again, as evidence of good faith, he declared his willingness to sign this undertaking and was released in the ordinary course.


Gordon Graydon: Was he interned because he was a nazi sympathizer?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He was interned at the time all the Germans were being picked up, being interned first in September, 1939, on reports that had been received from the locality in which he lived. Those reports were investigated and found to be not sufficient, so that he was released in December, 1939. Then when the general order was being made, in June, 1940, to pick up all the nazi or fascist sympathizers throughout the country, he was included in the list.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister will permit me, while it is hard to know what facts are acceptable and what are not, as the minister knows this Doctor Schneider was alleged to have been very much interested in the election campaign of 1940. It was difficult for the public to understand why he should be picked up and released just before the election; then picked up again after the election was over. When all the parts of this apparent puzzle are put together, of course the public are led to believe what has been stated often in the house and what perhaps will remain in the public mind for a long time.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He will have a chance to do a better election job this summer.


John George Diefenbaker: That explanation
does not quite agree with the explanation given

War Appropriation-Justice
by the former Minister of Justice who, speaking in this house on June 13, 1940, at page 745 of Hansard, said:
In one case, which was in Saskatchewan, the man was released under special circumstances in December.
I point out that the minister now says he was released as the result of a finding in his favour.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not in December. At that time the system of advisory boards had not been set up. I said after an investigation, but not after a hearing.


John George Diefenbaker: The former minister went on:
I was told by my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that this man took part in the election which followed. Well, if he did, it did not serve him very well, because I have since ordered his reinternment and he is still in the camp. I [DOT]have no qualms of conscience as to that case at all. I cannot give to the house the circumstances, but at least one condition of his release was not lived up to, and this circumstance permitted me to order his reinternment.
Then the minister went on to describe a case in the province of Manitoba, of a man with the same surname; he said he had ordered that man's reintemment but felt that it was unfair to have done so, though he had to do it in the circumstances. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that between January 25, 1940, which was about the time the writs for the election were issued, and March 26, 1940, which was the date of the election, fifty per cent of those interned in Saskatchewan were released. That is why there was a feeling that considerations other than the safety of the state had entered into the equation. At that time the minister assured the house that this was not the case.
I should like to say one thing for the minister. While extraordinary powers are given under the defence of Canada regulations in the matter of internment, since becoming minister the hon. gentleman has seen to it that no one has been kept interned after his release has been recommended by an advisory committee, thereby removing the complaint so often heard that unless the minister acted in that way, too great powers were thereby exercised by him.
Now, with respect to internees who are British subjects by naturalization, men who have endeavoured by subversive activities to undermine this country in a time of war, and whose activities have been designed to assist the enemy, has the minister given consideration to recommending a change in the law whereby their naturalization certificates will be cancelled, and whereby when the war is
over such people will be returned to those countries they have actively endeavoured to support during this time of war?
It seems difficult to understand why people who came to this country and accepted the honour of citizenship, but who have endeavoured to undermine the state, should after their discharge be permitted to resume their activities as citizens of this country and receive the protection and the honour that British citizenship carries with it. Some amendment or some change in the law should be effected whereby such people would be sent back to the countries the causes of which they have espoused during this period of war. That is the only way in which that vast number of citizens who have come from alien enemy countries but who have remained true and loyal to Canada will receive proper and fair consideration for what they have done during the period of war. They have supported Canada, and they have the right to ask that those who have acted in a treasonable manner shall receive something more than internment.
I think of a man in Saskatchewan living near the town of Gull Lake, who served in the German army before coming to Canada. His son, while a sergeant-pilot in this war, earned the D.F.M., was commissioned, and is to-day a flying officer. To such men, all honour; but with respect to those others who have accepted citizenship in Canada, and at the same time have endeavoured to undermine this country in a time of war, no consideration, political or otherwise, should be permitted to intervene with their being sent back to those countries they have endeavoured to support, while at the same time accepting the protection of British citizenship.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have listened with interest to the explanations given by the minister, particularly that concerning the Schneider case. As the evidence will appear, Mr. Schneider was released as the result of a recommendation by an advisory committee. I am not for a moment questioning the integrity of advisory committees, but I urge that they should be careful not to relax their vigilance in respect of people who have been placed in internment camps as a result of investigations instituted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It is true that in June, 1940, this country was considerably aroused and concerned about these matters, and that possibly the vigilance was somewhat greater than necessary. Nevertheless the Schneider case was investigated on September 22, 1942, which is some considerable time later. I presume careful consideration was given to it at that time, and that all evidence was before the committee. The result of the investigation was a recommendation that detention be continued. I
War Appropriation-Justice

suggest to the minister, and through him to the advisory committee, that the fact the war is looking somewhat better for us should not cause us to relax our vigilance in respect of these suspects.
These signed documents, under which these people promise to be good boys-I think we may put it in that way-do not amount to much. Hitler made promises and did not keep them; and there are lots of other people who are prepared to make promises, but who are not ready to keep them.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps it is more significant when one refuses to sign.


Gordon Graydon: I doubt that; I should be inclined to think the opposite.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not always. However, the matter raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre is and has been for some time receiving careful attention. I believe we shall have at our disposal the results of carefully made and independent investigations into the histories of each of these persons. We shall be in a position to make such use of those histories as may be proper under the conditions of any peace treaty which will be established.
At this time I do not think it would be wise to go farther. We are not going to be unfair to anyone, whatever his origin. That has been the attitude of the government, particularly the departments of External Affairs and National Defence. They have insisted upon the maintenance of that attitude. It is one which I believe should be maintained, because we do not want any other country, some citizens of which may be in Canada, to be unfair to Canadian citizens who are held in such countries as prisoners of war or otherwise. We shall have made investigations which will enable us to have the facts, and we shall be in a position to take the action which may be indicated by those facts.


John George Diefenbaker: My understanding is that when a person who holds a naturalization certificate as a British subject is found guilty of subversive activities, such certificate 's not automatically cancelled?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; but that is a matter which is receiving attention. An interdepartmental committee which acts in an advisory capacity has been set up. It will be supplied with all the information, and will have the facts in respect of each case in which action might be taken. I am quite sure the hon. member is not suggesting that a person who is a naturalized British subject and who has been interned should be considered as having against him a conviction for subversive activity. The possibility of subversive

activity is all that is required to bring the Minister of Justice to the conclusion that for the safety of the state it is necessary to order internment.
The minister does not attempt to make a conviction. That would mean that the benefit of the doubt would be in favour of the person whose case might be under consideration. Under the defence of Canada regulations it has been and is the practice of placing the benefit of the doubt in favour of the state. If there is any doubt as to a man's being dangerous, such doubt must be resolved in favour of the state. It may be unfortunate in some cases that persons whose intentions and motives and conduct may be innocent should suffer. Nevertheless the rule I have indicated is the one we find it necessary to apply in respect of the administration of these regulations. When it comes to imposing penal sanction-and none could be greater than the cancellation of one's naturalization certificate -we would require the kind of evidence which would justify a conviction.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Upon review of a number of cases it has been found that original internment was carried out for no reason other than the one that the internees were of enemy extraction, but were also British citizens. I know of many cases of that kind. Upon review it has been found that these internees have not been dangerous. Is there any move to give them redress for their internment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there is not. The regulations were administered for the safety of the state and it has not been felt that any consideration should be given to such cases. Should a case arise where there has been a glaring mistake owing to negligence, that would be another matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the time I had reference to there was a certain amount of hysteria in the country. This was quite natural, as the minister has explained, owing to the possibilities of subversive activities, but perhaps numbers of persons were interned who should not have been. I have in mind a man who was a really good citizen, a builder who employed many men. I do not know why he was taken up, but he was sent to an internment camp and kept there for quite a while before he was released. Three of his sons were in the army and the fact that he was interned had broken up his entire family. His wife's health has failed and I was just wondering if in a review of any such case there would be any redress.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will just make a note of that.

Kettle Valley Railway


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My hon. friend says that he knows of a case where an error was made. I have some knowledge of the operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice in the earlier, stressful days to which my hon. friend refers. There have been remarkably few cases of error in internment, but the situation has changed and releases have been made after careful and full investigation. However, I should not like my hon. friend-and perhaps he did not intend to-to cast any reflection upon the magnificent record of our secret service as carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in times of great stress, at a time when the mother country had her back to the wall and when there was a growing rumble of subversive activities. In that connection I should like to pay a tribute to the fine work and the few mistakes made in connection with the entire administration of internment operations in this country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have nothing to say against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On the contrary I shall have some fine words to say about them when that matter is before us. That does not come under this item. I was assuming from what the minister said that a large number of internments had been made at a time when there was considerable hysteria, but that to-day only a small number comparatively speaking are still interned. I have known the man to whom I referred for many years, although I cannot say whether he committed any subversive action. He was of Italian origin and his family were highly respected. At that time many Italians were loaded in vans and taken away, and I was wondering if there might not be some redress made in cases like this. Simply because a man is of a certain nationality should not warrant his being unnecessarily, one might say abused, although that is not the right word- perhaps suppressed would be better. We shall never build up a country out of different races, as have our neighbours to the south, unless we have a more human understanding of those different races. This man had a family of seven, all born here in Canada, and several are now in the armed forces. This may be only one case-it is not for me -to say-but I merely asked the minister if such cases were being considered. He has said that it will be looked into. I have a very high regard for the Minister of Justice because I have always found him very fair in giving his answers.


Alfred Henry Bence: I understand that under the regulations a man who is interned cannot run for an election. If Camillien Houde is successful in his application, would he then be in position to stand for election to the various legislative bodies in the country?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have been warned several times that it is improper for the Minister of Justice to attempt to give a legal opinion from his seat in the house. I shall refer my hon. friend to the regulation and ask him to draw his own conclusion. It is No. 65, which reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any statute or other law, no person who has been detained or interned under the provisions of these regulations, and while so detained or interned, or who has been convicted of any offence against regulation 39C of these regulations, shall be eligible as a candidate for any public office at any municipal, provincial or dominion election, or otherwise.
That regulation creates an obstacle while a man is interned. As to whether or not there would be an obstacle resulting from internment after his release would, I suggest, depend upon the terms of the provincial or municipal statute that governed the eligibility of candidates for election.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale) moved the second reading of bill No. 88, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company.
He said: I move the second reading of this bill in the hope that it will be sent to the standing committee on railways. Forty years ago the company had power to construct this branch line, but did not do so, or did so only in part, and the desire now is to continue that construction for another ten miles down to a place called Osoyoos, a little north of the United States boundary, where there is a considerable volume of produce to be picked up. The branch line at present stops thirty miles or so south of Penticton, and if the railway is not continued for the other ten miles, the produce from that area, which is continually increasing, will have to be carried by truck on the highway, at the expense of both gas and rubber. The railway company is of opinion that now is the time to continue-the construction to this other point of collection.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Fundy Air Lines

[Stage Direction]
Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) moved the second reading of bill No. 89, to incorporate Fundy Air Lines.
He said: In moving the second reading of this bill, I would call to the attention of the house that order in council P.C. 2200, passed on May 18, 1943, provided that "during the present war or until otherwise ordered by the governor in council no further letters of patent under part 1 of the Companies Act as amended be granted incorporating a company having as a principal object or purpose the operation of aircraft in Canada or between Canada and other countries." That same order in section 2 provides that "applicants should be advised, if they desire to incorporate companies with this particular object or purpose, to apply for incorporation by act of parliament."
I wish to emphasize that the proposed bill does not involve the granting of any specific licence or route to actually engage in air operations between specified points or otherwise operate aircraft. The petition is purely and simply for the incorporation of a company which cannot now be incorporated by letters of patent or charter.
Before Fundy Air Lines, if incorporated, can actually operate, it will be necessary to secure a licence from the Department of Transport which, speaking generally, would warrant the airworthiness of their aircraft, and also to secure a licence from the board of transport commissioners to fly between such points and places as may from time to time be named by order in council. The board of transport commissioners, as the law stands at present, have the sole right to grant licences but only between such points and places as have been named by order in council. It is understood that a number of applications are at present pending before the board of transport commissioners but cannot be dealt with until appropriate orders in council have been passed. The powers asked for in the proposed bill are those usually required to set up company machinery with authority to carry on air line services.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the second reading of this bill. What I understand the applicants are asking for is a charter which has been denied them by the order in council referred to by the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill; that is to say, an amendment made under the War Measures Act to the first part of the Companies Act; an amendment made while parliament was in session-be it known to the members of this house-which was made without notice to the
public and is an infringement of the rights and privileges of parliament. However, that is in passing.
This bill, I think, should be passed, because it is an evidence that private enterprise is not yet quite dead in relation to civil aviation in this country. It probably is on its way out if the policy of the Minister of Transport is carried to its logical conclusion. I should like to see this bill go to the railway committee, and there the promoters will of course appear to support their proposals and tell the people of Canada just what they have in mind. I think I know what they have in mind. They desire to get a corporate franchise and, if possible, to get authorization to operate certain routes in the maritime provinces; routes, it may be, which have been denied to other private enterprise; I do not know about that. The people who are behind this measure are quite capable financially of entering into this class of transportation business.
I merely rose for the purpose of saying that this bill would have been unnecessary if there had not been an invasion of parliamentary rights on the part of the ministry, and, second, that if these people mean business in the future they should be given encouragement, but if they only mean to get a franchise which will have a nuisance value in the future, it ought not to be granted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether any member of the government would care to indicate whether the passing of this bill will in any way conflict with the policies proposed by the government in connection with civil aviation. I understand there is on the order paper another bill in the name of the government dealing with this matter. We have already had considerable debate on the subject. I should appreciate it very much if some member of the government, in view of the absence of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), would say a word in this connection.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not
say that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You generally leave out what you want to say and say what you do not want to say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a new thought.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am going to vote against this bill because I do not think the principle is right. I am not discussing the technical side of it, but this company seems to be trying to get a charter for the purpose, as I understood the Minister of Munitions and Supply to say, of reserving air lines for the men coming back after the war. I cannot see why the company should ask for this charter. Why can they not wait until after the war? We are taking over other lines, or notifying other private companies, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway company, of our intention to take over lines. Why, therefore, should we grant charters to some private companies? I should like to have a further explanation before I can undertake to support the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask a question. Is it not true that Mr. William Wendell Rogers, named as an incorporator in this bill, was one of the most famous Canadian aviators in the last war?


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: This granting of charters to air lines takes me back over the history of Canada a few years ago when we were granting charters to those engaged in the railway enterprise. What was the outcome? We found that after a certain number of years the Canadian government or the Canadian people had to take over a number of roads which were absolutely useless. If the charter
which is sought in this instance is granted, should the private company engaged in operating it find it impossible to continue and be compelled to give up the line, the people who will be served by this line will naturally look to the government for a continuation of the service, just as people did in the case of railways that could not be carried on. I suggest that before such charters are granted the matter should be given very careful consideration.


Mr. POTTIER:: To answer the question raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), Mr. Rogers, one of the five persons named in the bill, was a member of the air force in the last war and had a record of eleven planes. He was given the Military Cross. Two of the other gentlemen indicated were also in the Royal Air Force, and of the other two one was in the army and received the Military Cross in the last war, while the other was also a member of the armed forces. In short, three of these gentlemen had records in the air force and two were in the army. Answering the suggestion that there is an attempt at exploitation of members of the service, I do not believe the hon. member who suggested this really meant it. If he kflew these gentlemen he would not have made the suggestion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a
question?


Thomas Vien: The debate has been
closed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph fines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAlTH (Ottawa West) moved the second reading of bill No. 94, respecting a certain patent application of Claude II. Peters.
Gordon Graydon: By way of interrogation rather than to make any remarks, may I ask the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill whether, to his knowledge, there are any precedents along the line suggested in the bill itself? It opens up an avenue which perhaps may have been opened before. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, when the hon. gentleman introduced the bill he stated that a firm of solicitors was in default with respect to the patent application mentioned in the bill. On a question put to him, as to whether or not the firm of solicitors had been struck from the record because of this particular default, I believe he said it was so. It would appear on the surface as though equity would
Patent Application

be done if this bill were passed and the applicant put in the same position as he was in relation to the original application, so as to wipe out any injustice that might have occurred through no fault of his own. Perhaps the hon. member when, he closes the debate will answer the question as to whether or not this will be creating a precedent, because after all this is an important matter.


Mr. McILRAITH:: The leader of the opposition is quite correct. He deals with the causes that make this bill necessary. It was a firm of patent attorneys, not solicitors, that was in default. The practice under the Patent Act is to set up a registry, and all patent attorneys entitled to practise under that act are registered. By reason of the failure on the part of the firm to which the applicant sent his work, to carry out its duties this bill becomes necessary.
With respect to the question of precedent, I regret I am not able to answer the question asked by the leader of the opposition, but I shall have the information when the bill is in committee. I would point out, however, that even with the bill the applicant is not in as good position as he would have been had the patent attorneys not neglected their duties. It might be pointed out that under the provisions of the bill the rights of other persons which have arisen since the date his patent would normally have been dealt with are fully protected. We do not know what rights may have arisen in the meantime, but any rights that have arisen are protected under the bill as proposed. Therefore, in no circumstances can the applicant be in as good position as he would have been had he not employed this particular firm of Canadian patent attorneys. As was stated by the leader of the opposition, we are considering this bill because of the failure of the firm of patent attorneys to carry out its duties.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps with the consent of the house I might make just one observation with respect to that. By giving second reading to this bill and referring it to the appropriate committee. I hope we shall not be setting up a precedent so that in subsequent sessions we shall be asked to take similar action when an agent or a person who is employed by some other person, whether he be a patent attorney, a solicitor, or under whatever name he may be known, defaults in his duties. I hope it will be recognized that this parliament will have no obligation either morally, legally or constitutionally to make good in the future default to the person who employed the defaulter to act for him. That is the only point with respect to this bill that seems to present itself. This is the first time

since I have been in the House of Commons that parliament has been asked to act in such a way. While it is true we are dealing with this individual application at the present time and that we should as a parliament attempt, if possible, to rectify what seems to be a glaring piece of injustice, and one which was wdiolly beyond the power and control of the aggrieved person, yet, I do hope it will be made abundantly clear both in committee and on third reading of the bill that parliament is not creating a precedent whereby agencies and defaulters of this kind can have their mistakes corrected. After all, we must remember it was not this parliament nor this government nor the committee which deals with it that had anything to do with the choosing of the particular agent, solicitor or attorney employed by this man to carry out his orders. I hope that will be distinctly understood. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have encroached upon the time of the house to this extent, but I thought it was important in view of the explanation which the hon. member has made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge) moved the second reading of bill No. 109 respecting the Alberta Provincial Bank.
Gordon Graydon: I understood the mover of second reading of this bill was in a position to explain its contents.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It is the settled conviction of the people of Alberta that the various provinces in the dominion should be permitted to have provincial banks. They believe that had that policy been followed from the beginning, the economy of Canada would have been in a far better conditon than it is now. The Alberta government is simply petitioning the dominion government for authority to establish a provincial bank for Alberta.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I am afraid I cannot, on behalf of the government, consent to the second reading of this bill. I will, however, propose that the course that was taken in 1940 with respect to a similar bill be taken in regard to this bill, namely, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration and report.
I must, I think, give some reasons why I think that is the proper course to follow. I

Alberta Provincial Bank
have looked at the bill and I have also examined the bill which was introduced in the Alberta legislature authorizing the formation of the Alberta provincial bank. I have not seen the act which was passed by the Alberta legislature, and I do not know whether the act is in the same terms as the bill that was introduced; but the plan' of the Alberta government is to establish a bank called the Alberta provincial bank and that the owners of that bank will be province of Alberta. The $500,000 which are initially subscribed for shares are to be paid by the government of Alberta. It is to be Alberta provincial money. The directors of the bank are the members of the Alberta provincial government. The directors are not to own shares in their own right, as provided by the Bank Act, but are to hold their shares in trust for the province of Alberta.
Then by section 5 of the bill it is proposed that some sixteen sections of the Bank Act shall not apply to the proposed new Alberta provincial bank. Let me refer to a few of these sections. In proposing that sections 11 and 20 of the Bank Act shall not apply, certain minimum requirements are removed in the matter of both provisional directors and the directors who are elected by the shareholders. These two sections require that each provisional director or elected director be (1) a bona fide subscriber of stock of the bank on his own behalf; (2) become the absolute and sole owner in his individual right of such stock, and not as trustee or in the right of another; (3) a subscriber for and pay up not less than $3,000 for such stock in the case of a bank capitalized at $1,000,000 or less, $4,000 in the case of a bank capitalized at over $1,000,000 but not over $3,000,000, and $5,000 in the case of a bank capitalized at over $3,000,000. A further requirement in the case of directors elected by the shareholders is that a majority shall be natural born or naturalized British subjects domiciled in Canada. This bill dispenses with these minimum requirements of the Bank Act, and id doing so the bill would appear to be running contrary to a fundamental principle of that act, which is that bank directors be not mere trustees or nominees of some unknown or impersonal owner of stock, but that they be individuals with a definite personal stake in the business and a personal responsibility for the way in which the affairs of the bank are conducted and the money of the depositors is handled. I referred to the provision of the Bank Act which ensures that a majority of the elected directors must be British subjects domiciled in Canada. This provision is put there for a purpose. Any exclusion of its operation in the 100-184
case of a particular bank would seem to require the most careful consideration by this parliament.
Then section 12 of the Bank Act is not to apply to the proposed bank. This' section provides for the opening of stock books for public subscription after ten days' public notice. A subscriber to stock is required to give particulars of his address and occupation as well as the number of shares subscribed for. Section 33 of the Bank Act is excluded. This section provides that any of the original unsubscribed stock or any increase in stock may be allotted to the original subscribers pro rata at not less than par and, inter alia, for a price payable in money. These safeguards are of the utmost importance to depositors and creditors of a bank. Any exception from the operation of this section should be most carefully considered. In excluding sections 35, 37, 39, 40 and 41 of the Bank Act, the bill removes provisions dealing with the right to call on shareholders to pay up any unpaid amount on their stock. It may be that the committee or this house, after examining the Alberta statute, will come to the conclusion that these sections of the Bank Act have no application in this particular case. On the other hand, parliament may come to the conclusion that the dominion should not enact legislation leaving this matter unprotected and dependent upon the continuation of the present provincial legislation.
The other sections of the Bank Act which are excluded have to do with the transfer and transmission of the shares in a bank. These exclusions have to be examined in the light of the provincial statute, which contemplates a holding of the shares by members of the government of the province, and the cessation of their ownership of the shares when they cease to be members of the government of the province. Here also the question of the continuation of the provincial statute in its present form must be examined. In pith and substance the bill is just what the mover described it to be; it is a bill to make the province of Alberta a bank.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Another department of the government.


John Horne Blackmore: It is to give the province of Alberta power to have a provincial bank.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It depends upon what you call a province, but it makes the provincial government of Alberta a bank.


John Horne Blackmore: Do you call the government of the Dominion of Canada a bank in the case of the Bank of Canada?

Alberta Provincial Bank


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly not. The Bank of Canada is a national bank, and the proposed bank will be a provincial bank. To say that the provincial government will be a bank is just as absurd as to say that the dominion government is a bank.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the directors of this proposed bank are to be the ministers of the crown in the province of Alberta. Apparently the whole intention is that these ministers will sit in their executive council chamber one hour, and then go on with the business of the bank. It is the executive council of the province of Alberta functioning as a bank. That was the conclusion of the law officers of the crown with regard to the previous bills introduced to incorporate an Alberta provincial bank, which were submitted to this parliament in 1940 and 1941. On those two occasions the law officers of the crown expressed grave doubts as to the constitutional validity of such a proposal. They have not had an opportunity to give full consideration to bill No. 109 and to the recently enacted Alberta statute, which has a bearing on the question of constitutionality. The terms of that provincial statute would, of course, have a bearing on that question.
Again, until the amendments to the Bank Act have been passed by this parliament, it would not be advisable to give this bill second reading. In bill No. 91, which has just been referred to the banking and commerce committee, the right to issue notes is to be taken away from existing banks as from January 1, 1945, and is to be denied to new banks. The double liability feature of the bank stock is to be amended in accordance with such changes. In reading bill No. 109, I take it that the sponsors had such amendments to the Bank Act in mind, because there is no provision for any liability in addition to the original 8500,000. That might not make much difference if the amendments to the Bank Act introduced this year become law, but one never knows whether or not they will become law. If they do not become law perhaps this bill should be changed somewhat, if, indeed, it is considered at all.
For these reasons, because this experiment is something never contemplated by the Bank Act; because it excludes the operation of quite a number of important sections, and because its constitutional validity is at least doubtful, I should think there would be something pretty anomalous about making a provincial government a bank, or a province a bank, to all intents and purposes. That is what this does; it puts them in the banking business.


John Horne Blackmore: No more than the dominion cabinet is a bank.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are on the constitutional point now, and constitutionally this is a dominion sphere, not a provincial sphere.


John Horne Blackmore: That is why we are
asking the dominion to give us power to have a bank.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question is whether we
have power to delegate that; that is the constitutional point I am talking about. Therefore for these reasons-and possibly there are other reasons as well-I wish to move in amendment:
That this ibill be not now read a second time, tout that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration and report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, that was the course pursued on a previous occasion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill
was not read a second time, but was referred to the banking committee for consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And it is
my recollection that on that occasion I took the position that this house might as well deal with the principle of the bill right here and now, without its going to the committee.
The minister's observations opposing a second reading of the bill have a good deal of weight; there is m>
doubt about that. A grave constitutional principle is at stake. I do not think it is within the powers of parliament to delegate to a province the jurisdictional functions of the federal government, which are comprised within the provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act- and especially in the form in which it is proposed to be done here.
I should have thought the straightforward course would be to deal with the principle of the bill now, under this motion. However, since the ministry is apparently not prepared to do that-although that would be the courageous course, and the course which I think will be followed in the end-I am not going to oppose the amendment. I should think, though, that we might as well deal with this question as it now presents itself to the house in the matter of the principle involved in this proposed legislation. The house has to grapple with this situation sooner or later, and sending

Alberta Provincial Bank
it to a committee which already promises to be more than overworked will not ensure for it any better consideration.
I am not going to state any opinion I hold with respect to the proposal, but I suggest it would be much better to deal with the matter here and now, once and for all.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has said, the house must grapple with this situation sooner or later. But the way in which the house should grapple with it is not, in my judgment, the way in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury has in mind.
If it is not constitutionally competent for the dominion government to grant to a provincial government the right to have a bank, then something was seriously wrong with the constitution of Canada when it was framed.


Grote Stirling: That is a matter of opinion.


John Horne Blackmore: To tell any sensible individual, anywhere, that the province of Ontario, for example, is not entitled to have a provincial bank, is to say something that commends itself to any ordinary intelligence as being absurd. And to say that this dominion parliament, which is a creature of the various provincial legislatures of this country-[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a new theory of confederation.


John Horne Blackmore: To say that this parliament, which is the creature of the four original provinces of the dominion, has not the power to give back to one of those provinces the right to have a bank, is to say something that would puzzle the traditional Philadelphia lawyer.
I maintain that the time has come when the house has to face the responsibility of granting to the provinces the right to have banks. Alberta is merely leading the way. Her vision is clear; she knows where she wants to go, and she knows where she will go if the reactionaries who stand in the way of progress in this nation do not block her. The question is clear: Is this parliament going to give a sovereign province of the dominion the power to have some little influence in the conduct of the economy of that province, or is it not? I maintain that it is the duty of this parliament to grant a province of the dominion the right to have a bank.
The minister had several objections. Those objections are caused from the fact that there is an anomalous situation in the dominion.
100-184i
When the constitution of Canada was framed, apparently no provision was made for the granting of a bank to any province, in case such province should wish to have a bank. The result is that new ground has to be broken. Alberta, with the advice of an exceedingly well-informed attorney general's staff, has devised a scheme which, in their judgment, constitutes the best scheme for granting a bank to a province. This would constitute a precedent under which other provinces of the dominion in their turn could be granted banks.
I believe I have said sufficient to justify the house in voting down the minister's amendment, and voting for the second reading of the bill.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite satisfied with the minister's explanation that this parliament cannot constitutionally give a province the right to set up a bank. I am wondering just how it was that parliament was able to grant to private individuals the right to set up banks-a right that the dominion cannot grant to a province.
I understand that the control of credit and finance was, by the British North America Act, vested in the dominion government; and that shortly after confederation the dominion government did delegate that privilege to banks. I am wondering just what the difference is between that concession to the banks, and the concession here asked.
The minister pointed out further in his speech that certain sections of the Bank Act shall not apply. I realize that I may not ask a question at this point, but possibly the minister will clear up the situation I am wondering whether these same sections now apply to the Bank of Canada, as they do to the private banks; or is the Bank of Canada exempt from the application of some of those sections, as is requested in this bill?
Amendment (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson
Bertrand (Prescott) Bertrand (Terrebonne) Black (Yukon)
Blair
Blanchette Bonnier Bradette Gasselman, Mrs.
(Edmonton East) Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Chevrier
Claxton
Cleaver
Cote
Cruickshank Dechene Dupuis Edwards Emmerson Esling Evans Fauteux Fournier (Hull) Fraser (Peterborough West)
Gershaw
Alberta Provincial Bank

Gibson	McNevin
Gladstone	(Victoria, Ont.)
Golding	McNiven
Graham	(Regina City)
Grant	MacNicol
Graydon	Marier
Gregory	Martin
Hanson (Skeena)	Matthews
Henderson	Mayhew
Howden	Mills
Hurtubise	Mutch
Ilsley	O'Neill
Isnor	Pinard
Jackman	Pottier
Jean	Purdy
LaFleche	Ralston
Leger .	Reid
Little	Rennie
Lizotte	Ross (Calgary East)
McCann	Ross (Hamilton East)
McCulloch	Ross (St. Paul's)
MacDiarmid	Ryan
Macdonald (Halifax)	St. Laurent
Macdonald	Sanderson
(Kingston City)	Sissons
McDonald (Pontiac)	Soper
McGarry	Stirling
McGeer	Taylor
McGibbon	Thauvette
Mellraith	Tripp
Mclvor	Tucker
MacKenzie (Neepawa)	Turner
McLarty	Tustin
McLean (Simcoe East)	Weir
Macmillan	Whitman Winkler-93.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Blackmore	Kuhl
Burton	Marshall
Castleden	Nicholson
Coldwell	Nielsen, Mrs.
Gillis	Noseworthy
Hansell	Quelch
Illynka	Raymond
J aques	Rose
Johnston (Bow River)	Shaw
Knowles	Wright-20.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 90, to incorporate Workers Benevolent Association of Canada.
Bill No. 92, to incorporate Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada.
Bill No. 93, to change the name of The Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada to Personal Finance Company of Canada.
Bill No. 95, to incorporate the executive board of the Canada conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 102, respecting Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Reid.
[Mr. Noseworthy.j


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of the defence of Canada regulations, $30,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: I should like to
revert for a moment to the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. I realize, from the correspondence and the interviews I have had both with and on behalf of these people, something of the difficulty which confronts the government, and particularly those departments of the government concerned with selective service and national defence, in dealing with them. I am sure that every hon. member will support the government in its position *that no single group of citizens should, because of their religious beliefs, be exonerated from bearing their share of responsibility as citizens in times such as these.
I am not sure, however, that all the difficulties which have been encountered in dealing with these people are of their own making. The minister intimated that there are government officials who are a bit overzealous. From what I have seen I have been led to believe that many of these officials are. more concerned with the enforcement of regulations for the sake of enforcing them than with the ultimate effect of enforcement upon our war effort.
The minister gave reasons for not lifting the ban on the subsidiary corporations of the Witnesses. My information is that Canada is the only one of the allied countries which places a ban on these corporations. I assume that the United States, and Great Britain and other parts of the empire, are equally concerned for the safety of their particular countries; yet we find that for some reason we alone cannot lift the ban, as recommended by the parliamentary committee some years ago.
I myself am in a bit of a quandary on this point. Reference was made this afternoon to literature which is banned from this country because it is published by the Watch Tower Bible Tract Society of the United States. I, unfortunately perhaps, have in my .possession a book which was published by that society. It is the King James version of the bible. It was left with me a couple of weeks ago by one of these gentlemen who was visiting members

War Appropriation-Justice
of parliament. At the time I did not realize that the book was banned and I took it. My question is, what am I to do with it now? If I keep it I am no longer a law-abiding citizen; I have in my possesion banned literature. If I give it to someone else I am placing that person in the position I now am in. My religious scruples will not permit me to destroy this book, even though I am not a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. I should like the minister to tell me how I stand in this respect with the Department of Justice.


Mr. REID:: Did the hon. member not previously own a copy?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Wait till I have
finished-


Thomas Reid: I am astonished.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I did not previously own a copy published by the Bible Tract Society.


Thomas Reid: I am speaking of the bible.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister referred to the large number of these people who profess to be clergymen and therefore claim exemption from military service. Here again, I suppose that all of us will agree with the minister that everyone who professes to be ordained by God and thereby claims exemption from military service should not get that exemption. My information is, however, that although these people are reputed to have some thirty thousand members in Canada they are not permitted exemption for a single one of their leaders, although many of them have devoted years of their lives to the full-time work of teaching their doctrines. In this respect too, I understand, Canada is the only one of the allied nations that refuses to grant to those recognized leaders who devote full time to this work exemption on the same ground as is valid for clergymen of other religious denominations.
I have before me the regulations which are in effect in the country of our neighbour to the south, where a considerable number who are able to show that they have been devoting full time to this work are granted exemptions as clergymen. What I should like the minister to explain is, what are the conditions in Canada which make us different from other parts of the empire and the United States and render it impossible for us to grant concessions which these countries have granted?


Fred Rose: I was not satisfied with the explanation given by the minister regarding the release of Farr, Lorimer and Schneider from internment. I watched the activities of
Farr and Lorimer in Toronto. Lorimer was a dangerous man. Although not officially the leader, he gave instructions to Farr, who was the organizer. Lorimer was the power behind the throne, the man who pulled the strings. Very often Adrien Arcand used to come to Toronto and, instead of discussing important matters with Farr, would discuss them with Lorimer. When the gang, eleven of them, were taken, they went into custody with the hope that they would be out soon. In the camp Arcand told his people, "Six months, and we shall be.in power in Ottawa."
When things did not go so well with them, in other words, when Hitler was not doing so well, they naturally started to fight among themselves. This is what happened, and Farr weakened. I know of differences that arose between Farr and Adrien Arcand in Fredericton. I brought the matter to the attention of the authorities and pointed out that Farr was weakening, but not so Lorimer. Lorimer was in the camp very close to the nazis. At all times he lined himself up with the German nazis against anyone who dared to utter a word against fascism or nazism. I cannot understand, therefore, why Lorimer was released even earlier than Farr. If Farr weakened, it was not because he lost faith in the ideals of fascism and became a great upholder of democracy, but because the ship was sinking and the rat was willing to jump off the ship.
I cannot understand why men like these
should be released. We are told that the situation to-day is better in regard to the war and that we can give these people a chance.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Can you understand why Tim Buck was released?


Fred Rose: Let me finish. But the nazis, I understand, who are in the camps to-day are as cocky as ever, and if anyone in a camp raises his voice to utter any doubt about the outcome of the war things are made hot for him. I have heard stories of persons-their own people-being practically crippled because they dared to raise their voices and to express a doubt about the ultimate victorj' of Hitler. Why should we imagine that, because one of them says that from now on he will be a good man, he meant it? Can we believe that Schneider has suddenly become a good democrat? It pays him to say so and he says it. I repeat, the nazis are pretty cocky and the fascists have not given up their ideas. When we hear reports of some of the nazis already preparing a great underground movement for the post-war period we can believe it.
War Appropriation-Justice

I do not believe in the theory of softness toward them. If we show softness toward our own native fascists I am very much afraid we shall show it toward the nazi enemies against whom we are fighting at the present time. It is a problem of softness; that is what it is, and I cannot agree that we can afford to be soft with these people.
When these men were arrested, the late Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, said that the attorney general of Quebec had sent him a report in the matter- I quote from Hansard of the session of 1940 at page 983:
The attorney general of Quebec has sent me a report in the matter, accompanied by certain exhibits which show clearly that those people had communications and intelligence with enemies-Germany, Italy and elsewhere.
If that were true in 1940, how can we in this stage of the war, when the toughest battles are being fought, release these people? At the same time the late Minister of Justice, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) as to whether there would be a trial for these people, said, "Yes, there will be a trial." I would say that there should have been a trial. If these people were guilty of treason, the people of Canada should have known about it and no one would have been deceived. Trials are taking place in the United States at the present time. There are thirty seditionists appearing for trial there. The whole story will be told to the American people and their morale will be strengthened rather than weakened by the disclosures of the facts. I do not see why people like Arcand and his friends should not have been tried. On March 8, in Washington, in connection with one of the trials taking place there, the attorney general said: " Hitler had his quislings in the various countries. He had a Quisling in Norway, Laval in France, and he had Adrien Arcand in Canada." That is what the attorney general of the United States says; and News Week of this week suggests that after the release of Farr and Lorimer there is talk of the release of Adrien Arcand. If that were to happen, then I say it would be a crime against the people of Canada. I will go farther and say that we cannot even be satisfied with having taken in the few that we have.
In the province of Quebec, the good name of our people is being besmeared by elements like Menard, who to-day issues a sheet known as Le Bavard, in which he writes a eulogy of Major Scott, one of the fascist leaders, who died in the camp, suggesting that a statue be erected to this great soldier-hero who died in the struggle contre la juiverie, as he describes it-the struggle against Jewry.

Menard was not touched, although he was one of the early editors of Le Goglu and Le Patriote. We have Salluste Lavery, one of the old gang of fascists. He was not touched. There are many others who, by means of their agitation in the province, are issuing material of a type which is calculated to do great harm. The other day I picked up "La Priere d'un Juif", "A Jewish Prayer", the most insulting piece of propaganda ever issued in a democratic country, especially at this time of war. It is unsigned, but surely it should not be very difficult for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice, by merely checking the type, to find out where this insulting publication was printed and who was responsible for it.
On the other hand, in regard to certain other elements, the same Department of Justice' is not too lenient. I refer to a group of Finns in Sudbury, editors of a paper known as Vapaus, a paper which has always been opposed to the leadership of the Finnish fascist Mannerheim. It is a paper that upholds Canada's war effort. There are a few people at the head of that paper who have to report every month to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, though I do not know of any other Finns who have to report similarly. One of these people has three sons in the armed forces. Such a situation is ridiculous. I should like to know who advises the Department of Justice in regard to these people. They have always been anti-fascist; they have never had anything to do with Mannerheim or his gang; yet they have to report once every month to the R.C.M.P. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I should like to have an explanation of the matter.
I wish to ask a few more questions. How does it happen that the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Justice are involved in cases of men who have joined the army? I have here a letter of a man who has been in the army. He was proposed for officer training and was suddenly called in by the personnel man and told, "we like your work very much; you are very good, but in 1939 you were a member of the young communist league and a C I O. organizer. The R.C.M.P. say you cannot go to the officers training school". Who gives the R.C.M.P. that power? Do we not have a military department that looks after those matters or is the R.C.MP. a supergovernment? I should like an answer to that question.
I know a man who wants to go back to Italy. He was a member of the Italian government before Mussolini came into power. He was the mayor of an Italian town. He wants to return to Italy to do his duty to his

War Appropriation-Justice
country, but what happens? The R.C.M.P. tell that man that he cannot return to his own country. I say that is going beyond the duties of the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Justice. I have here a copy of the report of the R.C.M.P. We find a whole section in it on labour, although there is a labour department. What have the R.C.M.P. to do with labour?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member for Cartier will find an item in the Department of Justice estimates dealing with the R.C.M.P.


Fred Rose: Then I shall conclude my remarks. I raise these points not because I want to attack the government or to raise opposition for the sake of opposition, but because the policy of the department appears to me to be a policy that has nothing in common with the policy of the government or the policy of the people fighting against fascism.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that we have had a good illustration this evening of what many of us feared would occur when the defence of Canada regulations were first adopted by this government and approved by parliament.
I do not believe that it is ever wise to put people in gaol or to incarcerate them without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves according to the principles of democratic justice. I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view that we may have put into internment camps people who ought not to have been there, and we may have let out of internment camps people who ought still to be in them. The ruspicions of the people are aroused. They think there has been either persecution of favouritism. There are no public records to show whether there has been persecution or favouritism. To-day we have the statement made-and I believe that the statement is justified-that the person named Lorimer is the man who with Arcand was regarded as the agent of the nazi movement and of Hitler in this country. Many people are suggesting that. I have had letters, as I have no doubt have other hon. members, and resolutions over the past few weeks, stating definitely that the government is more friendly to persons of that type than to persons with democratic sympathies. I do not believe that statement, but I know such statements are being made and believed. To-night we have had an expression of such an opinion. Of course, the defence of Canada regulations are still in effect and we are still operating under them. I remember very well that when they were brought down early in the war we
opposed them, and we have endeavoured to get something in the nature of a proper trial for people who are incarcerated.
I realize, as will all hon. members who have served on the defence of Canada regulations, that there may have been occasions when it might have been almost impossible, because of the war situation and the need of seeing to it that persons who were engaged in subversive activities were not forewarned of the people who were reporting upon them, not to vary to some extent the form of trial with which we have been familiar; but I insist that we have been wrong in this respect. To-day we are raising in the minds of the people across the country the opinion that there is an element of favouritism or undue influence somewhere that is allowing people like the ones we have been discussing this afternoon and this evening to be at liberty without an adequate explanation or without even an adequate trial. I have confidence in some of the people who have headed those committees. Some of us in this house who are aware-as some of us are-of the situation that developed when Italy entered the war, and what happened then, know how dangerous this kind of method of dealing with the problem which confronted the nation can be. I suggest that the minister and the department owe it to the house and the country to give a clear explanation as to why these things are being done at the present time; otherwise the suspicion will continue either that there has been undue poltical influence or that a certain amount of favouritism has been exercised in some of these cases.
I am of the opinion that where you have a man like the person named by the hon. member for Cartier, Lorimer, who was engaged in the kind of activities in which I am told and believe he was engaged, in the early part of the war or before the war, no kind of declaration that he was prepared to act differently would satisfy my mind. I would want some other and more concrete assurances that we would not be subject to the kind of propaganda that these people were engaged in. I know the hon. member for Cartier wrote a very interesting pamphlet a few years ago in which he outlined some of the activities of these people. I remember getting a copy of it at the time. It seems to me that the minister will have to be clear to the committee, and through the committee to the country, as to why these sympathizers with the nazi regime have been let out among us at this particular time.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I want to bring to the attention of the Department of Justice another grievance which has to do
War Appropriation-Justice

with the class called Jehovah's Witnesses. The hon. member for Macleod dealt quite fully this afternoon with some of the accusations that were made against them. He read extracts and affidavits to the committee so that the minister might become better acquainted with some of the things that are happening. Now, as far as-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member wishes to refer again to the matter of affidavits, and to how certain persons were treated in military camps, I shall have to raise a point of order. It was clearly demonstrated that that was something which was being investigated by the Minister of National Defence and was something with which the defence of Canada regulations had no connection whatsoever.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister is going to get all worked up about this I shall have to object. I had no intention of referring to that matter; I just happened to mention it in passing. What I wish to refer to is an entirely different matter. It just goes to prove the contention that I was about to make and I am not 'one of Jehovah's Witnesses. But let it be clearly understood that I do not stand for any partiality in so far as religion is concerned. I cannot see why any Christian group, so-called, in this Canada, whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other group, should be treated differently. The minister seems to get quite perturbed when anyone mentions Jehovah's Witnesses. A great deal could be said on this question of religion and the injustices that have been carried on. I do not intend to go into that, but I should like to bring a particular case to the attention of the minister, since I think it has to do with his department. I have a letter from one Orest Zarysky, a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely it is not right that any man appearing before a board in this country should have his credentials taken away from him and not given back, but that was what happened in this case. I will read part of his letter, where he says-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I rise to a point of order. The mobilization boards have nothing to do with the defence of Canada regulations, and I do not think it is proper to discuss on this item the procedure before such boards.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not bringing in the question of the mobilization boards; I am pointing out that when this man appeared before the mobilization board-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not see how that question has anything to do with the item at present before the committee. The point of order has been well taken by the Minister of Justice. I rule this afternoon, and I am going to rule again to-night, that we must keep within the bounds of the item under consideration or I shall have to appeal to the committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: But this was a case where papers were illegally taken from a man.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: It does not make any difference whether it was a mobilization board or who it was.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister has said, and of course I am bound to accept his statement, that the mobilization boards have nothing to do with his department, so that we must not have any discussion of that kind on this item.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it considered just, Mr. Chairman, that the credentials of any individual in this country, whether he be a member of Jehovah's Witnesses or of any other religious group, should be taken from him-


Vincent Dupuis: Were they taken by some official of the Department of Justice?


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly they were.


Vincent Dupuis: An official of the Department of Justice?


Charles Edward Johnston: It does not make any difference; they would not have to be taken by an official of the Department of Justice to have the matter come under this department, surely. If a man commits a crime he does not have to be under the Department of Justice before he can be arrested. This man had identification papers taken away from him. It makes no difference who took them; they were taken illegally.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. We are in committee ht the present time discussing a special item of the Department of Justice under the war appropriation resolutions. Paragraph 2 of standing order 58 reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I must abide by that rule or be remiss in my duty.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that we are still on the resolution, and I

War Appropriation-Justice
would refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who pointed out that under this item anything at all could be discussed. I do not think my remarks are out of order*, but I do not intend to go into the matter at any length. What I want to get from the Minister of Justice is-


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I rise to a point of order. Surely under this war appropriation we cannot discuss matters which properly come under the civil estimates. If the Department of Justice, through some of its officials, has made a mistake in reference to civil administration, that is another matter; we are now dealing with the war appropriation. I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will agree with that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bow River, this afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did suggest that technically we might discuss anything at all under the war appropriation resolution. That may be true, relatively, but for the last three sessions it has been understood by every hon. member of the committee that after a general discussion has taken place on the administration item the discussion must relate to the particular items before the committee. I do not believe either the hon. member for Bow River or the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would want to break this precedent, because we have always found wonderful cooperation in the deliberations of the committee, and this help was certainly given readily by those two hon. members.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that these are the estimates of the Department of Justice. <


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A special item of the Department of Justice under the war appropriation resolution.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, the administration item; and Jehovah's Witnesses have been discussed all afternoon and evening.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And it was precisely because the discussion was out of order, and was made clearly to appear to be out of order, that I raised the point this evening. We went on this afternoon for two and a half hours, but now we are discussing the item that has to do with the defence of Canada regulations. The hon. member has some grievance in regard to something that happened before a mobilization board, set up by the Department of Labour. I suppose it would take less time to let him go ahead and say anything he 100-185
wanted than it would to get a decision as to whether or not this discussion is relevant to the defence of Canada regulations. Clearly it is not relevant. The hon. gentleman wishes to complain because some papers were taken from some man by some mobilization board. How that can be relevant to the defence of Canada regulations is beyond my comprehension.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the minister is trying to exaggerate the situation. It has always been customary to have a general discussion of the affairs of the department concerned on the first item in the resolution.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I rise to a further point of order. I think my hon. friend must realize that any item at all cannot be discussed under the war appropriation; it must have something to do with the war appropriation. You cannot drag in a civil item of the department under the war appropriation resolution, and I think that was what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had in mind when he made his point this afternoon. We are technically free to discuss any matter relating to the prosecution of the war under this general item, but not a matter relating to the civil estimates.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the whole
trouble is with the manner in which this has been discussed. We have no bill and we have no schedules under which we can discuss matters item by item. I do not think we should take advantage of a technical point, but if you look at the resolution you will see that it says, "that it is expedient to introduce a measure for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada." I should like to know7 where anything wider than that could be found.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are other estimates than these.


Major James William Coldwell: I say I do not think we should take advantage of the technicality.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, the hon. member so stated this afternoon. If I am allowed to speak again, I realize that on a resolution of this kind discussion must necessarily be on a wide scale, but at the same time there must -be a limit to the repetition which may be permitted. Every hon. member must realize the impossibility of keeping two or three ministers and half a dozen officials on hand to answer the questions that may be asked. I am sure it is not the intention of the committee to act in that way, and it would not be conducive to effectiveness.


Charles Edward Johnston: This
department had to do with the setting up of

War Appropriation-Justice

the defence of Canada regulations, which imposed these restrictions upon this particular class of people. It was as a result of these regulations that a great many of these things occurred; and because some injustices were done by these regulations surely this is the time we should discuss them. These things happened as a result of the very regulations that were created by the Department of Justice.
I appeal to the Minister of Justice to see that justice is carried out for all classes of people, regardless of religion. Here is a particular instance in which an individual comes before a certain group of investigators, and he has taken away from him certain papers that prove his identification. Is it to be considered an act of justice that any individual in Canada can have taken from him papers of identification which will never be returned to him? I do not think that is justice, in any sense of the term.
I am not going to labour the point, but in all fairness to Jehovah's Witnesses, or to any other group, some provision should be made, and should be made now, whereby all these injustices would be removed.


Grote Stirling: The minister said this afternoon that there were 300 in internment. He then referred to 120 of British origin in internment. Is the latter figure of 120 included in the 300, or an additional number to be added to it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is included in it.


Grote Stirling: How many Japanese are now in internment? Would the minister divide the number into those who are Japanese nationals, those who have been naturalized, and those who are Canadian bom?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As of May 15 there appear to be 430 persons of the Japanese race still interned, of whom 268 were interned under regulation 21, as being British subjects, or treated as such, and of whom 162 were interned under regulation 25 as being Japanese nationals, or treated as such.


Grote Stirling: Does that include the naturalized ones?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. The 268 include the naturalized ones. I have not the division between those who were treated as British subjects because of naturalization, and those who were treated as such because of birth in this country.


Grote Stirling: Would it be possible to obtain that figure, and let me have it?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it will be possible, although it will take some little time. However, I shall be glad to have instructions given to have a statement prepared as accurately as we can have it prepared from the records. Our records are fairly complete. It will take some time, because it will involve looking up the pre-war registrations which, as the hon. member knows, were obtained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We would have to check the information obtained at that time with the names of the internees dealt with under regulation 21.


Grote Stirling: Have any Japanese who were once interned been released, as so many of those of Teutonic origin have been released?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The total number of persons of Japanese race who were interned is 782, of whom 352 have been released. The hon. member will recall that in the 782 there are included some who temporarily refused to accept orders of removal issued against them. I have not with me the break-down as to how many were regarded as British subjects, either through naturalization or through being born here. That is the total number of those who were released.
Quite a large number were interned for only a short time because they had refused to comply with the removal orders issued against them. As soon as they did agree to comply with the removal orders they were removed from the internment camps, under the regulations, but came under the supervision of the British Columbia Japanese commission. They were not given full release, but were merely taken out of the internment camps and turned over to those in charge of housing the Japanese who had been removed from the protected area in British Columbia.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to-night to the imposition of the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses, and criticism was directed against the department for the action taken in that connection. I do not know very much about these people in other districts, but I know something about their activities m my district, where a small group of them is located. Prior to the imposition of the ban they distributed among people of other religions tracts containing most insulting references to the clergy and the religion of those people. More than that, before the imposition of the ban they had the nerve and audacity-and I know this definitely-to say to certain young men subject to call, "If you

War Appropriation-Justice
join Jehovah's Witnesses you will be clear of the call under the mobilization act". The imposition of the bah put an end to that.
Actually there is to-day in my district a young man belonging to that order-or that church, or religion, or whatever it is-who failed to comply with the act. He has been summoned before a court and made to pay a fine. For some reason or another he is still at liberty. The parents of the other young men in that district, who know what has been going on, and whose sons are overseas or are in the army in Canada, come to me and say, "How is it that this man can get off, presumably because he is a Witness of Jehovah?"


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, just a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, you said that I was not permitted to discuss anything about mobilization; however, the hon. member for Pontiac is going right ahead.


James Arthur Ross: You are hot on the right side of the house. .


Wallace Reginald McDonald: I am not talking about the mobilization act. I am discussing what has taken place under the act, where action has been taken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Since this item deals with the mounted police


James Arthur Ross: No, it does not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Minister of Justice pointed out that mobilization did not come under his department. There can be no doubt, however, that Jehovah's Witnesses have been the subject of discussion for some time; we cannot get away from that. I think the hon. member for Pontiac should be allowed to discuss that sect, if he wishes.


Charles Edward Johnston: He just happens to be on the other side, I imagine.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is a reflection upon the Chair, and I would ask the hon. member for Bow River to withdraw it. I do not believe I have been unfair in my statement, because Jehovah's Witnesses have been the subject of discussion both this afternoon and this evening. Surely the hon. member for Pontiac should have the same opportunity to discuss the subject. At the same time I must say that any discussion of the mobilization act would be out of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was not reflecting upon the Chair. I was addressing my comment to the hon. member.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: Action was taken under the defence of Canada regulations. The boy was arrested, and made to pay a
100-185$
fine. For some reason or another he was liberated, and is still at liberty. I -want to know why he is at liberty.


Ernest George Hansell: Ask the mobilization board.


Mr. QUELCH:: Will the minister reply to
the questions asked by the hon. members for Cartier and Rosetown-Biggar in connection with the release of Lorimer? The charge was made that many persons in Canada have the feeling that the minister's department is more sympathetic toward people of fascist tendencies than toward those following the democratic way of life. I think the minister owes it to the committee to reply to that question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would ask the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, to look at the statement I made this afternoon. It is unfortunate that they were not in the chamber at that time and that the matter has been raised again.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be very glad to read what the minister said. After I sat down I found that I had been out of the chamber when the reply was given; I was not aware of that when I spoke.


Clarence Gillis: I was present this afternoon when the minister made his reply and as far as I am concerned it leaves a lot of doubt in my mind. The united nations are beginning to enter a decisive phase of the war and the international picture is somewhat beclouded and complicated from the political point of view. I listened to the minister very carefully and his reply leaves much to be desired. In her statement this afternoon with respect to the release of this man Schneider, the hon. member for North Battleford in effect accused the government of jeopardizing the safety of the state because of political expediency. That was my understanding of her statement, and the minister's reply did not clarify it.
In connection with Lorimer and Farr, the records of these two men are well known to practically every one in Canada who has paid any attention to national affairs. They were recognized as nationally-known fascists. Early in the war they were tried, convicted and interned as enemies of the state. I am calling a spade a spade; that was my conception of it. During their internment they softened up a little., and because of that the committees which retried their cases two or three times accepted their word that they were not going to be bad any more. One of them had received a licking from his friends while he was incarcerated and the other gave his word he would be good.
How much can you depend upon the word of a nazi or fascist? Mussolini and Hitler
War Appropriation-Justice

have demonstrated to the world that their signed or pledged word does not mean a thing except to gain time in order to serve their own ends. This indicates to me that at this stage of the war we are not thinking realistically. The release of Sir Oswald Mosley in England, and the release of nationally and internationally known fascists in Canada at a time like this should1 not have occurred.
I am not the kind of person who thinks anyone who does not agree with me should be interned or put in gaol. We have stood for the principle of a fair trial right through the whole process of discussing the defence of Canada regulations. However, I contend that once a man has had a fair trial, is convicted and sentenced, that sentence should be carried out to its logical conclusion. This is based upon the examination being properly made in the first place. This must 'be done if we are to maintain respect for the laws of the country. If earlier in the war we convicted the men we are discussing to-night of being enemies of the state, they are still enemies of the state. This country is now in a most dangerous stage of the war.
If there ever were a time during the fighting of this war when active nazis or fascists could be effective on the outside, it is the present time when the united nations are taking the offensive. If we are to take this attitude now, what attitude are we to take with international gangsters like Hitler and his satellites? If to-morrow his own people turn against him; if the Russians seem to be getting a little too close and Hitler decides that discretion is the better part of valour, that he should weep on someone's shoulder and throw up his hands, would there be any justification for the united nations withdrawing the slogan of unconditional surrender with which they have been taking the people forward? If we are to deal with the convicted enemies of this country in the way we have been, this trend will develop internationally and we shall lose the objectives for which we are fighting this war just as we lost those for which we fought in the last war.
I heard the minister's statement and I realize that he was depending upon the committees, but in my opinion the release of these three men is sowing discord in the minds of a great many people across this country who are really fighting this war. They are fighting for unconditional surrender and the complete elimination of the philosophy for which our enemies stand. I do not believe that a change of mind can take place overnight. Long before I ever expected to come into this house these people were known to me; I knew their records, their histories and their activities. I was quite satisfied when they were put away, and I

believed that the expiration of their sentences would not take place until the war was over and peace was concluded.
They can then be tried without any war hysteria and the proper punishment meted out. We should not get soft at this time. We should not consider negotiating or dealing with people who are known to be enemies of the state until the main issue on the other side is definitely and finally settled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries' branch-Purchase of materials in connection with manufacturers for war departments (recoverable), $200,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister explain the nature of this item?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is to provide working capital for the penitentiaries. We are producing a number of articles for other departments of government, particularly the armed services. The amounts paid for these articles go back into the consolidated revenue fund. Up to the war years it was possible to carry on this work by using temporarily in the penitentiaries branch funds voted for other purposes, but the value of the work turned out by the prisoners in the penitentiaries has been increased to such an extent that it is necessary to provide greater quantities of raw materials. As I say, this is to provide working capital to be used in the acquisition of raw materials to be worked in the penitentiaries.


Grote Stirling: It is a new departure this year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have been doing this for some time.


Grote Stirling: But this provision?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This provision was put in so that there might be something special for which this working capital could be taken.


Grote Stirling: It is the first time this year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the first time this year.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I was going to ask the minister what work is undertaken in the penitentiaries for the armed forces. I am very glad to know that some varied forms of work are being done in the penitentiaries, and I seize the opportunity of saying to the minister that I hope that when the regular estimate for the penitentiaries is up he will say something about penitentiary reform and the possibilities of carrying out the recommendations of the Archambault commission. I should be glad if he would be prepared to do that when the time comes.

Mrar Appropriation-Jvstice
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall make a note of the hon. member's remark and try to have information for him as to what has been done and is being done in that respect.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-[DOT]
Salaries, $643,000.
James Arthur Ross: There is quite an increase this year in this first item. However, before asking a question on that may I offer a few words in recognition of the wonderful service which this force has rendered and is rendering to-day to this country. Great credit is due to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the splendid work done by the members of the force during these years of war. When the war began there was no force which received such small recognition in the matter of pay and otherwise as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They still are rather hampered. They have to serve many years before they are allowed to marry, and they forgo many privileges and freedoms in one way and another. They are highly trained and extremely efficient, and the money we vote to expend upon them on behalf of the taxpayers is one of the best investments to which taxes can be put. In the light of the discussion we have had this afternoon, let me say that if there is any body of men to whom we should be grateful because of the small amount of sabotage which has occurred during these war years, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I should like the minister to give us some idea of the use to which this extra $100,000 for salaries will be put. Also I would repeat a question which I asked a year ago: in the case of a member of the force who has had meritorious service and a clear record for a period of, say fifteen or twenty years, what recognition does he receive? I think there should be some means of promotion or provision whereby he will receive promotion, or a corresponding financial benefit upon retirement. Is anything like this done or proposed to be done?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. member that we do attempt to give full recognition, because the retirement allowance under the superannuation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not follow the ordinary rule of the civil service; it is based upon the pay and allowances being received at the time of retirement. That is one of the factors of calculation; the other is the period of service. The factor which is taken to be multiplied by the years of service
is the pay and allowances at the moment of retirement; and the policy of the commissioner and his assistant commissioners to take care of meritorious service is to make promotions as expeditiously as the retirements in the upper level permit. Since the beginning of the war, because of the urgency of the situation and because the commissioner was authorized to take on 2,500 constable guards and 500 special constables, the releasing of the higher officers upon having attained what might otherwise be the age limits has had to be retarded. It has been necessary to keep in the service all those who were physically able to perform service, and one of the unfortunate incidents of that is that it has slowed up, to some extent, promotions right down through the force. The only hope we have been able to hold out to the men who have not obtained their promotions through the various ranks quite as rapidly as they would have expected to obtain them under normal conditions, is that when the war is over and we are able to dispense with the special men who have been taken on, quite a number of vacancies will occur, and the rapidity of the subsequent promotions will make up for the slowness during the war period.


James Arthur Ross: I should also like to know the reason for the increase of over $100,090 in this first item.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This increase is required for unforeseen outlays in connection with the engagement of clerks, stenographers, typists and employed civilians. The commissioner, as he has to be, is always very prudent; in looking at the sheet which has been distributed the hon. member will see that the provisions in the estimate have always been quite ample; and although it has not been possible, because of the man-power situation, to find with respect, for instance, to pay and allowances, which are the big items here, all the additional constables or special constables authorized by the order in council, the commissioner still provides for salaries and allowances for the full establishment if he can obtain them. Of course, if the situation became urgent, we would obtain them. There have been authorized, for instance, 2,500 constable guards. We have something like 1,800. We could get the additional 700 if the need for them were sufficiently urgent. We would have plenty of use for them if we could use them in all the work which has to be done. But there is some work for which untrained men cannot be used; and the reason for this provision is that we shall have under this war appropriation
War Appropriation-Justice

sufficient to pay the numbers that have been authorized, although we have not yet found it possible to take them all on.
This increase on the civilian side is because the commissioner has been taking on untrained civilians to do work which was being performed by men who were enrolled in the force. We have not a women's division, but we have been taking on civilians to do work which was being done under normal conditions by men who belonged to the regular establishment. The commissioner prefers to take them out of the kind of service that can be done by civilians rather than engage civilians for constable work.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I feel it my duty to bring to the notice of the committee an example of the remarkable skill and ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Early last September I was away in a remote part of the Rocky mountains in far western Alberta and I came down the mountain to a place called Rocky Mountain House by train. The train arrived at ten o'clock. I was accompanied by a Mr. Grindly, a member of the Alberta government's engineers, who had been with me in the mountains. We had left our car at the garage on Main street of Rocky Mountain House. As 1 say, the train arrived at the station at ten o'clock, and after getting our car I expressed a wish to go to see Old Rocky Mountain House, three miles away. We drove over town and I asked a man on Main street whether he could direct us to Old Rocky Mountain House. Following his directions, we drove away and came to the Saskatchewan river. We had to ferry over the river. I asked the ferryman the direction to Old Rocky Mountain House and he said that after crossing the river I should turn left and proceed for a mile and a half. We did so. At the same time, I wanted to find the mouth of Clearwater river. I had passed it by on account of the trees. I had not seen it. When I came back I told the ferryman that I had not found the mouth of Clearwater river, and he said, "When you cross the river this time turn to the right on the top of the hill, and the first bridge you come to will be Clearwater river." I did so, and a few moments later, after retracing our steps, as we came down the road, a man driving a car put his hand out of the window beckoning to us to stop. When we came abreast of his car he said he was a mounted policeman and asked "Is there a Mr. MacNicol in your car?" I said, "Yes, there is. I am John R. MacNicol." He said, "There is an important message for you at the railway station." It happened to be a message informing me that a relative had died. He said that they had received instructions to find me wherever I might be. There was an example

of most remarkable ability on the part of the police. How he found me I do not know. I had left the station at ten o'clock, and shortly after the telegram arrived and the mounted police started out to locate me. Within twenty-five minutes he had found me, I will not say in the wilds of Alberta, but in a remote area. I inquired his name, and I believe it was R. A. McMullen. I wish the minister would drop that police official a letter congratulating him upon his ability to find his man, so to speak. As I say, I do not know how he found me. I had not time to ask him, because I hurried to the station to get the wire, and I was speaking to Toronto at ten-fifty-five. They have a skill, intuition and ability that, in my opinion, cannot be surpassed by any police force in the world. They are able to find their man.


John George Diefenbaker: Tributes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are unnecessary. The service they render the country is their own reward.
There is one phase I would take up with the minister, namely, the question of developing the field of forensic medicine. During the past three years there has been developed in Regina a laboratory for the scientific investigation of crime and it has achieved a reputation all over North America. It was founded as a result of the influence of Commissioner Wood. It was placed under the control of the late Doctor Maurice Powers, whose work, I am sure, is known to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all those who appreciate the value of scientific knowledge in relation to crime and its detection.
Doctor Powers met an untimely end during the past, summer while engaged in the service to which he was devoting his life. His work, as I have already stated, was known everywhere on this continent. He developed a laboratory that was unexcelled in this country, and I suggest to the minister that in order to increase and widen the influence of the mounted police encouragement should be given a number of young medical students or medical men to enter the field of forensic medicine and continue the work that was so ably carried on during the all too short lifetime of Doctor Powers.
A further matter which I think I should bring to the attention of the minister was mentioned by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), namely, the regulation that has been in effect for so many years forbidding the marriage of young men in the mounted police until they have served a period of eight years. I have heard numbers of these young men point out that they are devoting themselves to the service of their country, and

War Appropriation-Justice
this regulation, while there may have been meritorious reasons for its existence in former years, is no longer necessary. There is no reason for its continuance beyond the initial three-year period. The removal of that regulation or, in any event, an alteration in it to make it applicable only during the first three years of service would result in the recruitment to the force of many young men who, after the war is over, will desire to continue in a semi-military force, but who feel that to operate under the detriment of inability to marry for a considerable period of years is something they cannot accept. I should like to ascertain from the minister his views on these two matters, both of which I advance with a desire to improve the efficiency of the force, high though it is to-day, in order to ensure that this force in years to come will maintain the high tradition it has achieved in the past, particularly since the beginning of the war, when men of the force, regardless of personal convenience, have made sacrifices which only history itself will be able to record.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The matter which the hon. gentleman has discussed is one in which I felt very much as he does. I discussed it with the commissioner and I was given reasons which appeared to me to be very weighty. The first is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police cannot afford to have its men incurring debts which they do not regularly pay. Their reputation is such that they must be regarded as good credit risks in the communities in which they five, and it is only after eight years of service that a man can attain the pay of a full constable. Up to the present time, though there has been made within recent months quite a substantial war-time increase in pay, the salaries that are being paid are not sufficient to enable a man to maintain a family until he has reached the time when he receives the constable's wage. That was one reason.
Another reason was that at the present time fifty-eight per cent of the -regular personnel of the R.C.M.P. is made up of married men, and with the tight housing situation that has existed all over the country one of the difficulties of the commissioner has been to find a sufficient number of unmarried qualified constables to do work at places where no housing accommodation for families could be found. I hope that is a temporary situation in this country. I hope it will not always be so that the distribution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel will depend upon the possible housing conditions in the various localities. But during the war period that has been a serious consideration with which the commissioner has had to wrestle, the possibility of placing in barracks a sufficient number of sufficiently qualified men to maintain the standards of service that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wish to give to the communities in which they are located. I hope that these are two objections that it will be possible to overcome some day. I hope that some day it will be possible to have the men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police paid, even after only three years of service, a sufficient salary to enable them, like their fellows, to start early the establishment of families. I also hope that it will not be so very long before the acute housing situation can be taken care of and when there will be a sufficient number of the physical things required to make more homes in this country.
The hon. member raised a question with respect to the department which was so ably conducted by Doctor Powers. That is one which is giving us some concern. It has not been possible, notwithstanding applications placed with various medical schools, to find anyone at this time to take over the work that has been inaugurated, and the commissioner has been obliged to resort again to the services, and quite satisfactory services, but not of a permanent nature, of Madame Doctor McGill, the provincial pathologist.
As hon. members know, the distribution of medical practitioners is under the procurement board and the first call on the medical profession, and especially the first call on all those graduating from medical schools, is for the armed forces. It has not yet been possible to find any man who could continue the work started by Doctor Powers. It is the intention of the commissioner not only to try to continue that work but to have it developed, because it is appreciated that it will be of value not only to the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but to the Canadian public in the assistance made available for the administration of justice.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I rise to compliment my hon. friends of the opposition and all hon. members of the committee upon what I regard as practically a unanimous view of the merits and deserts of this great force. I have been privileged to know something of their work, particularly in the first three years of the war, latterly, practically not at all. May I just make one or two observations. First, I would say that if the minister were to be indicted in connection with this item or with his administration of this force it would be because we are not sufficiently recognizing the magnificent service they are rendering, and because we are permitting them to do it still underpaid. I
War Appropriation-Justice

do not know that I could persuade the treasury board that I was right-there we come again to the treasury board. But let me point out this: the qualifications that a young man must have when he enters this force are very, very high. Then the courses that he must follow make it necessary for him to become efficient in ballistics, in the study of chemistry, in horsemanship, in the driving of all types of motor vehicles and in a knowledge of criminal law. AVe do not hear very much of the work they do, but on both oceans they are charged with the duty of searching incoming and outgoing vessels to prevent the possibility of the planning of sabotage, and the record of the lack of any attempts at sabotage in this war is a great tribute to this force.
I think I am entitled to pay a personal tribute to Commissioner General Stuart AVood. He is a man of vast experience, an experience which began many years ago with part-time service in Scotland Yard, that great school of training, where the enemies of crime learn how to combat it. I have concluded my task when I say that I believe this committee can properly be unanimous in a tribute to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a force which has maintained law and order in our country and whose anti-sabotage activities during this war are such that no country in the world can excel.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am always delighted to see that each year as this particular estimate comes before the committee a certain number of members on all sides of the committee find it fitting and proper to say a few words in praise of this magnificent Canadian organization, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am particularly pleased with the hon. member for Lake Centre who paid a tribute to the late Doctor Powers. I, too, had the privilege of working with Doctor Powers on a number of cases which happened to come within his particular phase of police activities. I formed the same opinion of Doctor Powers as apparently the hon. member for Lake Centre did. It was a great loss to a new and important branch of police work in Canada when Doctor Powers died. I was concerned when I heard the Minister of Justice say that it has been difficult to find a proper successor to a man whose stamp is placed upon that particular type of work which has been carried on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I realize, as does the minister, that the first duty of medical students and medical men generally is to the war effort. However, in view of the importance of this work to the whole of Canada, an effort should be made to furnish the mounted

police with the ablest member of the medical profession that can be found to carry on the work of Doctor Powers, for I believe that is absolutely essential if we are to build up a proper establishment.
As I listened to the debate in regard to internments and the other matters arising under the defence of Canada regulations, it struck me, in looking back over the more than four and a half years we have been at war, that this country owes a great debt to the Minister of Justice, whose integrity of purpose has won the respect and confidence of all hon. members and, I am sure, of the great majority of the people of this country. He has had at his right hand one of the finest police bodies in existence to-day, and they have followed the very wisest policy in that type of work. As it is in medicine, so it is in the world of crime; prevention is much better than cure. I have some personal knowledge of the splendid contribution made by the mounted police during this war period in the very field we were discussing to-day, the field of espionage and of subversive elements in our midst. AVhen I consider the few examples that can be brought forward and discussed, which are but the exceptions to the very general rule of freedom in this country from acts of espionage and uncontrolled subversive elements, in my opinion when the story of this work is written it will be found that this police force has discharged its task in an amazingly efficient manner. Therefore I join with the hon. member for Parry Sound and others in urging the minister, his colleagues and the members of this house to recognize the importance of keeping the traditions of this force up to the highest possible standard. This nation will reap a rich reward in the prevention of crime if we can keep the character and morale of the mounted police at a high level. If we look back on the early days in western Canada and the duties then performed by the mounted police, it is easy to realize the allure that service in that force presented. There was the call of adventure to individuals of a very high type. Perhaps that allure has vanished with the more prosaic duties performed by the police in these days, and we must replace it by some other incentive which will maintain the morale of the men. In my opinion the proper incentive is some recognition by way of salary, social standing and anything else we can reasonably do to make service in the force so attractive that the finest young men of this country will make that service their career.
As I say, I merely wish to add my voice to the many that are raised annually in praise and appreciation of the splendid work this force is doing and has done in the past.
MAY i5, 1944
War Appropriation-Justice


Gordon Graydon: I have no desire to enter into any kind of competition in this eulogy to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so that I shall condense what I think has been meant by everyone who has taken part in this discussion. Having in mind the magnificent job the force has done in this war-time period for such a large number of citizens with such a relatively small number of men; having in mind that they are not very well compensated for their work, I should like to say that in my opinion in the civilian field in this war we can sum it all up as far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned by saying that never did so few do so much for so many for so little.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In acknowledging the tributes that have been paid to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which all agree are so well deserved, may I ask for one small tribute to the treasury board, which does not receive many tributes. In the month of March I went to the treasury board with a recommendation which contained the following sentence:	"It is estimated that if the
above temporary recommendation is approved the total cost per annum will be approximately 11,242,368.75." The result was a minute of treasury board at once accepting the recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to join in the tributes that are being paid not to the treasury board but to the men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am sure the opinion is unanimous that the men of this force deserve the tributes that are paid them annually on the floor of this house. As the minister knows, and as hon. members know, these men have certain grievances, such as those which have been mentioned this evening. Some of us from time to time bring these and other matters to the attention of the. minister or the commissioner of the force; and when we pay our tributes to the services performed by these men we do so in the realization that they give their services loyally and wholeheartedly, despite some of the grievances they hold quite justly. I hope that step by step some of these matters may be adjusted, and that when the war is over, full consideration may be given the claims of these men.
I should like to direct one matter to the attention of the minister and the committee. It suggests that at times the men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are called upon to undertake tasks which are much less heroic, shall I say, than some of the. glamorous things they are called upon to do in the north country or the finding of a member of parliament out in the Rocky mountains.
It seems to me that this particular task which seems to have fallen to the lot of a division of the mounted police is one which this force really ought not to be called upon to perform if it could be avoided. This document was sent to me in the mail; I confess that it was sent anonymously, but it appears to be quite official.


Gordon Graydon: If it is an official document you had better table it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be quite prepared to do so if the leader of the opposition would like it and can find support from the other side of the chamber. It reads:
Canada
Sale by Tender
Tenders addressed to the undersigned will be received at his office at . . .
Then the address is given and a final date. I quote further:
. . . for the following property forfeited under the Excise Act, viz:-Two pairs ladies' rayon stockings, sizes nine and ten. Tenders must be submitted ini sealed envelope marked "Tender". Terms, ten per cent deposit in cash, money order or certified cheque with tender. The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted. Cash on acceptance of tender.
It was posted over the name of the officer commanding a certain division of the force. I am sorry I was not equal to the task of reading this without revealing my sense of amusement, but it did strike me as a sample of the kind of task which is sometimes assigned to mounted police, and which does seem to be a waste of time. Certainly it is very expensive to go through all this rigmarole to sell two pairs of ladies' stockings. Can the minister tell us whether this kind of thing is done very often, or whether this is an exception?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has had more experience with the force than I have, and he tells me he has never known of his force dealing in ladies' stockings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is the document.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, $108,000.
Charles Edward Johnston: Why is there this substantial increase?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This estimate is an extension of the policy which has been instituted, and is for the purpose of dealing with the acute shortage of housing throughout the country. I find that $90,000 is provided here for duplex buildings for married officers. It is
War Appropriation-Justice

estimated that this will be required during the year to take care of the housing of these married officers in various parts of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can the minister say where these houses are?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; no definite location can at this time be given as to where it might be necessary to erect these residential buildings. The policy is to lease wherever possible to secure a house. During the dinner hour I approved a recommendation from the commissioner for a house which will be available next August, and which it has been possible to obtain at a rental of S65 a month. On Friday of last week there was a recommendation, in connection with another city, where a house was to become vacant in a few months, and where a lease would be available for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Wherever it is possible to secure quarters on lease, no construction will be done, because we also have to get priorities from those who control supplies, and we have to be able to convince them that it is absolutely necessary, and that we cannot get along without it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Security service, $249,975.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice that in paragraph (b) at the bottom of the sheet we have been given we find an explanation for the unexpended balance of last year. The reason given is as follows:
The anticipated general organization of security service being found not necessary.
Perhaps the minister would explain why, in view of that statement, a vote more than twice as large as the amount expended last year should now be asked.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A large project of security service had been recommended by United Kingdom security officers. Provision had been made for the organization of that service here. I must say that from the outset the commissioner was not very sympathetic to the idea of organizing a new service, and seemed to prefer to have as much of that security work done by his regular staff as might be possible. The man-power situation made it difficult to organize any large special service, and the amount expended in the last fiscal year was expended principally in the ports on the Atlantic coast.
The reason for estimating a possible expenditure of something more than twice the size of the amount expended last year is that there

is always the possibility of having to duplicate on the Pacific coast the security services that have been in operation during the last year on the Atlantic coast.
As the hon. member will notice, these provisions are made in such a way that there will not be any undue delay as to such things as may have to be done in the course of the year. But the hon. member may be assured that none of this money which does not have to be spent will be spent under the direction of the commissioner. It is because of the possibility during the present fiscal year of having to duplicate on the Pacific coast the much smaller security body that has been set up on the Atlantic coast-much smaller than had been first recommended-that this amount is provided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one further question growing out of the fact that last year there was an unexpended balance in this item. Hon. members will notice there were similar unexpended balances in respect of other items on this sheet. At the bottom of the page we find this note:
Minus sign under unexpended balance column represents overdrafts in allotments which are to be covered by transfers from balances available in other allotments.
If I understand the procedure correctly, the transferring of a credit from one allotment in order to cover a deficit in another would not be permitted as far as civil estimates are concerned. It must be permissible here, or I am sure the Minister of Justice would not allow it to be done. If that is the case, I just emphasize the fact that what we are dealing with in this committee is not a schedule of specific items but a total amount of money. In dealing with it in that way, we are called upon to give the departments of government considerable latitude for adjusting the different portions of that amount after parliament has passed the bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The schedule I have placed before hon. members will not make it possible for the Department of Justice or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make these expenditures without obtaining specific allocations from the treasury board. There has to be a requisition to treasury board and an allocation by treasury board out of the war appropriation which, as the hon. member has said, is voted as a total amount.

Public Service Council-Personnel


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand that
the treasury board would not grant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police a total amount for the year greater than S6,557.871?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: 1 do not know whether or not that would be done, but up to the present it has not been necessary to make application to the treasury board for even as much as was included in the itemized statement to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, May 16, 1944