1945-11-14

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter from the assistant secretary to His Excellency the Governor General:

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Patrick Kerwin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, the 14th November, at 5.50 p.m. fo-r the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax) moved that the first report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, presented on the 13th instant, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	Who are the members of the crown assets allocation committee?
2.	What is the total amount allowed to manufacturing and other firms in double depreciation in the reconversion plans to date?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	J. H. Berry, chairman, president of war assets corporation; P. R. Bengough, representing trades and labour congress of Canada, 172 MacLaren street; A. Ross, deputy minister, Department of National Defence (army), Room 301, Canadian building; C. K. C. Martin, chief of distribution division, wartime prices and trade board; W. D. Matthews, chief administrative officer, Department of External Affairs, east block; E. P. Murphy, deputy minister, Department of Public Works, Hunter building; B. G. McIntyre, comptroller of the treasury, Confederation building; J. F. Desmarais, horticulteur, Iberville, P.Q.; Finlay Sim, secretary, Department of Trade and Commerce, west block; W. S. Woods, deputy minister, Department of Veterans Affairs, room 12, Daly building; Mrs. C. H. Thorburn, 209 Daly avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; T. Earl Walker, Department of Transport, Hunter building.
2.	Under the terms of order in council P.C.
8640, dated November 10,	1944, capital
expenditures certified by the depreciation

Questions
committee of the Department of Reconstruction would qualify for a rate of depreciation at the option of the taxpayer from one-'nalf to double the rates normally allowed. However, no depreciation shall be allowed after the aggregate of the allowances made thereunder equals 80 per cent of the capital costs so certified.
The cumulative capital expenditures certified, as at November 10, 1945, by the depreciation committee amounts to $208,412,589.14.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-WARSHIPS AND EQUIPMENT
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Were the former warships, that were sold recently at Sorel by War Assets Corporation, sold f.o.b. Sorel?
2.	If not, how were they sold?
3.	What electrical and other equipment, if any, was left aboard these vessels?
4.	What quantities, if any, of fuel oil or other fuel, was aboard these vessels when they were sold?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes, except those mentioned in, answer to question No. 2.
2.	Warships sold for breaking up purposes, became the responsiblity of the purchasers in the condition the ships were at the time of sale, but oni proof of cost the purchasers are entitled to a rebate at the rate of three dollars per mile (to a maximum total sum of $2,000) towards the cost of removal from Sorel to their destination.
3.	Ordinary operating equipment, but secret equipment and articles still required by the Department of National Defence (navy) were removed. Guns were either removed or rendered useless.
4.	In the case of oil-burning ships, the amount of oil varied between sixteen and sixty tons averaging approximately thirty-one tons. Coal-burning ships had quantities of coal which varied between thirty and sixty tons, averaging approximately forty-five tons.


NINTH VICTORY LOAN POSTER
Mr. COCKERAM:: Referring to the 9th victory loan poster which was the subject of discussion in the house on the 25th October, 1945:
1.	Who printed this poster?
2.	How many were printed?
3.	What was the cost of printing and circulating them?
4.	Was the poster withdrawn? If so, when, and what was the cost of withdrawal?
5.	Was a prize awarded for this poster?
6.	If so, what was the amount of the prize, and to whom was the prize awirded?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Brigdens Limited, Toronto-Arthurs-Jones, Toronto.
2.	116,000 English-39,000 French.
3.	Approximately $14,000, including art work, plates, paper and printing.
4.	During the week of October 8th provincial and unit committees were advised) by the national war finance committee, Ottawa, that withdrawal in so far as possible was desirable. Large numbers of the posters were withdrawn where distribution was not too widespread and where supplies of the poster were in the hands of the provincial and unit committees. It is not possible to determine the cost of the withdrawal because that operation is included with the many other duties performed by the national war finance committee at that time.
5.	Poster won am army competition for ninth victory loan posters for which a prize was arranged.
6.	The amount of the prize was a $100 victory bond. The prize has not yet been awarded, but will be awarded as soon as it is determined beyond doubt that the questionable wording was introduced into the poster after it had left the possession of the prize winner. The name of the prize winner is Sergeant A. A. Davis.


PENNFIELD, N.B., AIR FIELD
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What was the total cost of construction and. equipping the Pennfield airfield, Pennfield, New Brunswick?
2.	How many airmen were trained at this station from the beginning to the end of the war?
3.	What was the per capita cost for training of each airman?
4.	Is this airfield being used at the present time? If so, for what purpose?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	$3,471,805.14, including land, aerodrome development, construction and facilities.
2.	2,367 personnel, of which number 1,939 graduated.
3.	Numerous different types of courses were carried out at Pennfield and1 expenditures are not recorded1 in such a manner that a breakdown of costs between the various types of training is available.
4.	An R.C.A.F. rear party is presently engaged at this site, closing out the unit and preparing it for the surplus declaration, which is being auctioned on the 1st December. 1945. Also on this site the Canadian export board has some hangar space for the packing of fish to be sent to Europe for UNRRA. The sergeants' mess is being used as a temporary school for the community

Questions


PARK STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many ships of the Park Steamship company have been sold, and at what price in each ease?
2.	What are the names of such ships, and what price was paid for each of them when acquired by the government?
3.	Who authorized the sale of such ships?
4.	Were they sold by private sale or were tenders called?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	A total of 15 ships have -been sold- as follows:' eleven 4,700 tonners at $415,000; three 4,700 tonners at $390,000; one 3,600 ton tanker at $350,000.
2. Name	Cost
5.5.	Woodland Park	
$1,303,348	60SR. Ainslie Park	
1,303,302	11SR. Montmorency Park	
1,300,000	00SR. Kensington Park	
1,303,364	50SR. Manitou Park	
1,303,342	71SR. Willow Park	
l.ioo'ooo	00SR. Confederation Park	1,300,000	00SR. Camp Dcbert	
1,300,000	00SR. Chignecto Park	
1,300,000	00SR. Cataraqui Park	1,300.000 005.5.	Crescent Park	
1,304,917	45SR. Ashby Park	
l'lOOOOO	005.5.	Mayfair Park	
1,301,175	00SR. Sunset Park	
1,100,000	00M/V Eglinton Park	
1,102,209 34
Note: The final costs of these ships have not yet been determined, but the cost values given are as recorded in the Park Steamship company's accounts.
3.	The government of Canada under order in council.
4.	Private sales.


PERENNIAL WHEAT
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture carried out any experiments with perennial wheat?
2.	If so, what degree of success has been achieved to date?
3.	Has the department had any contact with Russian authorities on the subject ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All of the perennial wheat in Canada has been developed by crossing different species and varieties of wheat on certain grasses, notably Agropyron elong-atum and Agropyron glaucum. As yet we have had no success so far as wheat is concerned, but many new perennial grasses show promise.
3.	Yes. The department has tried to keep in contact with the Russian authorities on this subject, but with not very great success.
(Mr. Brooks.]


REGIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Who are the members of the regional war labour board for British Columbia?
2.	When was each one appointed?
3.	Are the members of the board paid an annual salary or paid for the number of days on each occasion when the board is sitting?
4.	What was the amount paid to each member of the board as (a) salary or per diem allowance; (b) travelling or other expenses for the period January 1, 1945, to May 31, 1945?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The members of the regional war labour board for British Columbia are: chairman, Hon. George S. Pearson, Minister of Labour; vicechairman, A,dam Bell, deputy minister of labour (acts only in the absence of the chairman) ; representing employers: Colonel G. H. Kirkpatrick, Colonel John F. Keen, Sidney Garfield Smith; representing employees: Blrt Showier, L. Campbell, H. W. Mackey.
2.	Hon. Geo. S. Pearson, December 9, 1941; Adam Bell, November 15, 1941; Col. G. H. Kirkpatrick, April 15, 1943; Col. John F. Keen, July 28, 1942; Sidney Garfield Smith, December 9, 1941; Birt Showier, April 22, 1943; L. Campbell, December 9, 1941; H. W. Mackey, December 9, 1941.
3.	Members of the board are paid on a per diem basis for each day engaged in the work of the Board.
4.	Salary or Per Diem	Travelling or OtherMember	Allowance $	Expenses $Hon. Geo. S. Pearson	nil	nilAdam Bell 	330 00	nilCol. G. H. Kirkpatrick	1.050 00	30 25Col. John F. Keen....	780 00	11 17Sidney Garfield Smith	195 00	nilBirt Showier	885 00	15 55L. Campbell 	990 00	37 47H. W. Mackey 	780 00	39 72


GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR-REQUEST TO LIVE IN CANADA
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	How many, if any, German prisoners of war have -asked permission to take up residence in Canada?'
2.	Has the government taken any action regarding the requests?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Approximately seventy-five prisoners of war have made applications in various forms for permission to remain in Canada.
2.	The applications -have been placed on Department of National Defence files of prisoners of war concerned for future reference. No further action has been taken.

Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. THATCHER:: 1. Since January 1, 1945, what is the total number of immigrants who have been allowed
to come to Canada?
2. What is their racial origin?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	18,299.
2.
Armenian	 3
Belgian	 24
Bohemian	 9
English	 11,787
Irish	 1,412
Scotch	 2.115
Welsh	 241
Bulgarian	 1
Croatian	 1
Czech	 33
Dutch	 201
Esthonian	 4
Finnish	 15
French	 984
German	 378
Greek	 18
Hebrew	 310
Italian	 99
Jugo-Slav	 15
Lettish	 2
Lithuanian	 8
Magyar	 32
Maltese	 5
Mexican	 1
Moravian	 ^ 3
Negro	 66
North American Indian	 11
Polish	 95
Portugese	 7
Roumanian	 11
Russian	  68
Ruthenian	 26
Scandinavian-
Danish	 42
Icelandic	   12
Norwegian	 104
Swedish	 77
Serbian	 4
Slovak	 9
Spanish	 19
Spanish-Ameriean	 3
Swiss	 24
Syrian	 20
18.299


COLONEL BELCHER HOSPITAL, CALGARY
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 
CANADIAN NAVY-DISCHARGES
Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	How many men have received their final discharge from the Royal Canadian Navy vat each of the naval divisions?
2.	How many men have passed through the discharge transit centres and are on leave before proceeding to naval divisions for their final discharge?
3.	What is the average number of discharges per day, granted at Esquimalt in OctobeT?
4.	What is the estimated number of final discharges which will be granted in November, December, January, February and March?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Since demobilization was instituted on
2nd June, 1945, the final discharges, by divisions, to the 3rd November, 1945, are as follows:
St. John's, Nfld., H.M.C.S. Avalon	 51
Saint John, N.B., H.M.C.S. Brunswicker 1,317
Ottawa, Ont., H.M.C.S. Carleton	 1,082
Kingston, Ont., H.M.C.S. Cataraqui .... 1,213 Winnipeg, Man., H.M.C.S. Chippawa .. 3,200 Prince Rupert, B.C., H.M.C.S. Chatham 32 Deep Brook; N.S., H.M.C.S. Cornwallis 162 Vancouver, B.C., H.M.C.S. Discovery .. 2,457 Montreal, P.Q., H.M.C.S. Donnacona... 4,475 Port Arthur, Ont., H.M.C.S. Griffon.... 1,022
Windsor, Ont., H.M.C.S. Hunter	 1,292
Quebec, P.Q., H.M.C.S. Montcalm		542
Esquimalt, B.C., H.M.C.S. Naden	 1,912
Edmonton, Alta., H.M.C.S. Nonsuch_____ 1,377
Halifax, N.S.,	H.M.C.S Peregrine	3,136Halifax, N.S.,	H.M.C.S. Stadacona	262London, Ont.,	H.M.C.S. Prevost	
1,687Sydney, N.S.,	H.M.C.S Protector	649Regina, Sask.,	H.M.C.S. Queen	
1,107
Charlottetown, P.E.I., H.M.C.S. Queen
Charlotte	 535
Shelburne, N.S., H.M.C.S. Shelburne... 81 St. Hyacinthe, P.Q., H.M.C.S. St.
Hyacinthe	 11
Hamilton, Ont., H.M.C.S. Star	2,101
Calgary, Alta., H.M.C.S. Tecumseh	 1,321
Saskatchewan (Saskatoon), H.M.CS.
Unicorn	 1,187
Toronto, Ont., H.M.C.S. York	 6,273
38,484
2.	Officers	 2,745
Ratings	 9,522
Total	12,267
Questions

3.	In Esquimalt in the four weeks preceding the 3rd November, 1945, there were 534 discharges for a daily average of 22-25 based1 on a six day week.
4.	It is estimated the number of final discharges which will be granted in November, December, January, February and March are as follows:	November, 12,000; December,
11,000; January, 11,000; February, 7,000; March, 7,000.


BRITISH WIVES OP CANADIAN SERVICE PERSONNEL
Mr. BRUCE:: What action is the government taking with respect to giving priority to bringing servicemen's wives home, over the single men who have not been long overseas or who have not seen actual service?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: None. All available
troop transports are being utilized for troop repatriation and will not be allocated to dependents until the troops are repatriated. Any departure from this arrangement would necessitate a radical change of present policy for repatriation of service personnel. It would give rise to much justified criticism on the part of the troops still remaining to be repatriated as it would mean delaying their return to Canada and to civilian life.
Every effort is being made to bring back servicemen's wives and dependents as quickly as possible without interfering with or delaying the repatriation of overseas troops,' whether single or otherwise.


WARTIME HOUSING
Mr. BENIDICKSON:: 1.	How many municipalities have negotiated contracts with Wartime Housing Limited for construction of houses for veterans?
2.	What are the names of these municipalities, and how- many housing units are involved in respect of each municipality?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Forty-one municipalities.
2.
Name of	Project	No. of Muni-	No ofMunicipality	No.	cipalities	HousesKamloops....	.. 1	1	100Kelowna	.. 1	1	100Penticton	. 1	1	100Vancouver	. 1A. 2 &	3 1	1,200Victoria	.. 3 & 4	1	150Calgary	.. 1 & 2	1	500Edmonton....	. 4, 5 & 6	1	400Lethbridge....	. 1	1 [DOT]	50No. of.	Nameiof	Project	Muni-	No. ofMunicipality	No.	cipalities	HousesMoose Jaw....	2, 3 &	4 1	200Prince Albert..	1	1	50Regina	2, 3 & 4 1	300Saskatoon	1 & 2	1	300Yorkton	1	1	50Sutherland	1 & 2	1	30St. Boniface...	1	1	100St. James	. 1	1	50Transcona	, 1	1	25Winnipeg	1-2, 3 & 4 1	400Fort Garry....	1	1	25Brantford	3 & 4	1	200Cornwall	2	1	50Fort William..	7	1	100Hamilton	11	1	200London	1 & 2	1	100Oshawa	4	1	75Ottawa	3	1	200Owen Sound...	1	1	50Peterborough..	8	1	100Port Arthur...	2 & 3	1	100Preston	1	1	50St. Catharines.	11	1	50Sarnia	4	1	200Sault Ste. Marie	3	1	50Smiths Falls...	1	1	50Toronto	1, 2, 3,	4 1	850Windsor	9 & 10	1	450Hull	3	1	125Montreal	2, 3 &	4 1	428Sherbrooke	1	1	75Saint John, N.B	5 & 6	1	150Halifax Apts...	12Halifax	18	1	25541	8,050


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-RECEIPTS TO JULY 31, 1915
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What was the amount of money received by the federal government from the disposal of war assets up to July 31, 1945?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Gross proceeds of sales by war assets corporation, as of July 31, 1945, S24,423,051.26; as of September " 30, 1945, $33,538,548.25.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-MANITOBA
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What rural municipalities in Manitoba have applied for assistance this year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
2.	What other applications have been received from Manitoba?
3.	Has any money -been paid out, to date, in connection with these applications? If so, how-much and to whom was it paid?

Motions jor Papers


Mr. GARDINER:: There is no part of
this question to which I take any exception except the last phrase, "and to whom was it paid?" This question has been put in previous sessions of the house and it has been pointed out that there are 82,000 farmers to whom prairie farm assistance payments have been made in .one year. If answers to questions of this kind be insisted upon, it will be seen what that will amount to. But there is another and more important reason. It is . provided, either in the legislation or the regulations-I am speaking from memory at the moment

that this money must be paid to the individual farmer. That provision is made for the purpose of preventing collectors from realizing on this money which is paid out for the purpose of retaining a farmeT on1 his land until the next crop is harvested. Questions have been asked in the past, and questions have been sent in to us in an effort to obtain the names of these people. We have refused to give these names to implement companies and others that may be collecting in the community. There is the suggestion that if names can be obtained in this way, it would be easier to make collections and we have always refused to give the names. If it meets with the approval of the hon. member who asks the question, I would suggest that it be not answered at the moment. We could give without any great injury the few names that would be involved1 in Manitoba up to the present time, but if we continued with that practice I am afraid it would work to the detriment of those concerned.


James Horace King: Question stands, as
amended.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many individual income tax returns were filed in each of the tax years 1939 to 1944?
2.	How many individual returns of each year have been assessed to date?
3.	What rvas the net income on which assessments were approved, and the amount of taxes assessed in each of the tax years 1939 to 1944?
4.	How many corporatipn income tax returns wme filed in each of the tax years 1939 to 1944?
5.	How many corporation returns of each year have been assessed to date?
6.	What was the net income on which assessments were approved, and the amount of taxes assessed in each of the tax years 1939 to 1944?


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-BLANKETS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1. What was the quantity of blankets purchased for the, (a) army; (b) air force; (c) navy, to date?
2.	What was the average price paid by the Canadian government for these blankets?
3.	What quantity of blankets have been declared surplus by the, (a) army; (b) air force; (c) navy, to date?
4.	How have these been disposed of?


SWIFT CURRENT, SASK., AIR TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Who were the contractors and/or builders of the air training school at Swift Current, Saskatchewan?
2.	Were contracts let by tender?
3.	If so, were any lower tenders received than those accepted?
4.	What was the cost of, (a) hangars; (b) other buildings; (c) streets and walks; (d) road; (e) railway spur; (f) water mains; (g) water leads and fixtures; (h) sewage disposal system; (a) electric light and power lines, and branch lines; (j) wiring and fixtures on grounds and in buildings?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence between the deputy minister or other officials of the Department of Labour and the advisory boards of the department, dated since V-E day, dealing with the question of suitable employment.


Mr. MITCHELL:: This motion asks for the production of correspondence between officials of the Department of Labour. As he well knows, such correspondence is privileged and cannot be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As indicated by the
minister two days ago, he sent me privately the documents which I ask to be tabled by this motion. I have considered them carefully and I have also consulted with some of my colleagues about them. I cannot see that they are privileged. I feel that they are documents that should be published because they have to do with the administration of an act of this parliament and have a bearing on the level of wages in this country. I feel that the motion should be carried.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not for my hon. friend to say what is privileged; that is a matter of precedent and procedure in this House of Commons. I do not think my hon. friend should abuse a courtesy, and I must insist that correspondence of this kind, between officials and a minister, cannot be tabled and is not tabled in this House of Commons.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is this not correspondence largely between the minister and different labour offices in the country giving instructions? Should we not know what instructions have been given by the department?
Motions for Papers


Humphrey Mitchell: If it is instructions, that is an entirely different matter. The motion says, "between the deputy minister or other officials", which is an entirely different matter. If the principle of tabling correspondence of this kind were to be established you would not need' any officials because you could never get a frank opinion from them. Every document or memorandum would' be predicated) on the possibility of its being tabled in this House of Commons. I think that answers the question. We ought to *understand that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was told by the deputy minister that this motion would not involve the production of any letters, but only certain circulars, copies of which have been furnished to me privately. I have studied them carefully and I do not agree that they are privileged documents.


James Horace King: I must draw the attention of the house to the fact that notices of motions for the production of papers are not debatable. H there is any objection to the minister's suggestion that the hon. member should withdraw his motion, I have only one choice and that is to put the motion to the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BEAUDRY:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted. I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LESAGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRYCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McDONALD (Parry Sound):: I was paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Daniel). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-CLAIM OP MRS. LILLIAN BATEMAN

Mr. GILLIS:: For a copy of all correspondence and memoranda passing between the Department of Labour, unemployment insurance branch, Ottawa, ar.d the unemployment insurance office in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Moncton, New Brunswick, on the claim for unemployment insurance of Mrs. Lillian Bateman, of Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Humphrey Mitchell: I must object to this
motion on the same ground as objection was stated to the last motion. In addition I would like to say this-and I think my hon. friend understands it clearly. The party in question has * appealed to the board of referees, composed of representatives of labour and of employers, and an impartial chairman.


Clarence Gillis: We allowed this motion to
stand over for several days on the understanding that the minister would discuss the matter with me. My information is-I do not know whether the minister has it-that this matter has been dealt with by the board of referees and disposed of. It is not similar to the one just voted upon. This motion merely asks for the production of papers in one specific case. All I want in fact is the decision of the board of referees, and why they made it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no objection to
my hon. friend getting the decision; that is public property. He will agree with me, however, that correspondence between officials of the department and officials of the unemployment commission is privileged correspondence.	0


Clarence Gillis: Might this motion stand-


James Horace King: Order. I would call the
hon. member's attention to standing order 52, which reads:
When a private member's notice of motion shall have been twice called from the Chair and not proceeded with, it shall be dropped, provided that it may be placed at the foot of the list on the order paper upon motion made after due notice.
The motion has been called a second time and1 it should not stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all fairness to my hon. friend, I must point out that he stood the motion over as a matter of courtesy to the Minister of Labour, who was absent on duty elsewhere, and although that rule is correctly cited except for notices of motion for production of papers, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should be applied in this case.


Clarence Gillis: Stand.


Mr. ILSLEY:: By unanimous consent.
Motion stands. .
Motions for Papers



CANADIAN INFORMATION SERVICE-SUPERVISING COMMITTEE

Mr. FLEMING:: Far a copy of all minutes and proceedings of the committee supervising the Canadian information service.


Mr. CLAXTON:: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Egldnton (Mr. Fleming) in allowing this motion to stand when I was away on business. I regret to have to oppose the motion on the ground that this Canadian information service supervisory committee is, in relation to that service, in exactly the same position as any government agency or board, or any official. Section 4 of P.C. 6300 setting up the service provides that "the committee shall report to the cabinet through the Hon. Brooke Claxton, who shall be the minister responsible for the service." The committee is there for the purpose of advising and recommending courses of action which fhe service can take, but if it takes it, it takes it on my responsibility as the responsible minister. Such advice and recommendations are confidential and privileged for a reason which has been recognized in every parliament, and for which there is ample authority, namely, that a minister must be able to obtain frank and unfettered opinions and advice from those on whom he must rely for advice in the conduct of public business. This is particularly the case here in that this service is responsible directly to a minister. It does not constitute part of his department. The committee looks into matters and when it does so it reports on them and the minister is entitled to have views for and against, good views and bad vieiws, views that are necessary in arriving at a decision. It is obvious that if matters of this kind are to be subject to tabling, the minister can no longer expect to have full and frank opinions from these officials, because, if he gets an opinion which is in accordance with action subsequently taken, the officer may be subject to criticism by the opposition or by someone else on the ground that he is acting in accordance with government policy. If on the other hand the minister fails to follow the advice, then there is created a public issue between the minister and those responsible for advising him, which would result, I venture to say, in the public service of Canada being thrown into turmoil.
Further, the officials of this committee have no means of explaining or defending their actions here. That is my duty. I am responsible for them and I am entitled to their advice. Were it not possible for them to give that advice freely, without fear of its being

exposed to public scrutiny in a place where they could not defend themselves, I fear the public service would suffer very materially.
In this connection it is interesting to recall that many members of the opposition, when they were in the government, took exactly the same position on a number of occasions in 1930, 1931 and 1932. If the house wished me to do so, I could refer to those occasions. . I venture to say that any party in power would be forced to take the same position in order to see that the public business is carried on. This is the most typical and characteristic case one could find, and therefore I cannot accept the motion.


Mr. CHURCH:: The department should be abolished. It is a waste of money, it is only propaganda, and no information is given at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest to the house
that the remarks of the minister have not been directed to the motion. I am not asking in the motion for the production of reports to the minister or for opinions given to him by this committee. What the motion asks for is a copy of the minutes and proceedings of the committee. If you look at the order in council referred to by the minister you will see that this is an administrative body. It is charged with carrying out the provisions of the order P.C. 6300. It is directed to provide means and facilities for distributing abroad information concerning Canada and for coordinating and assisting the public information services of the government. Section 3 states that the service shall be under the supervision of the committee, and it is with that committee that we are dealing. I do not think it is correct to say that the administration is in the hands of the minister and that this committee simply advises hftn. Rather the order clearly shows that this committee is the committee that supervises the administration. Reports to the minister do not come within the scope of the present motion.
I suggest that this refusal or opposition to the present motion arises in a situation that is without precedent. These precedents to which the minister has referred have no bearing on the situation, and I think I should say why-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am simply endeavouring to answer the point raised by the 'minister; I think I am entitled to do that.


James Horace King: Order.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have here a situation where after the termination of hostilities the government by order in council under power it claims by virtue of the War Measures Act

Motions for Papers
has set up a body to supersede the previous body, the wartime information board. Parliament knows nothing about this matter except the very brief announcement made in the house by the Minister of Finance on October 2 when he tabled order in council P.C. 6300. We know nothing more than that. I wish to submit to the house that parliament at no time has been consulted in regard to the establishment of the Canadian information service! The Canadian information service has no relation to the prosecution of tihe war. The government purports to establish it for this purpose:
The service shall provide means and facilities for distributing abroad information concerning Canada and for coordinating and assisting the public information services of the government.
That is obviously-


Brooke Claxton: With some regret I must rise to a point of order. My hon. friend's argument may be very strong, but it is directed toward the existence or non-existence or the creation of the Canadian information service. It is not in support of his motion at all, and is quite irrelevant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My remarks are relevant to the statement made by the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to give my reasons.


James Horace King: Order. I must call the attention of hon. members to the fact that notices of motion for the production of papers are not debatable. Of course it is the privilege of the mover of the motion to give an explanation, as it is his privilege to answer the remarks made by the minister; but in his discussion he should keep within the scope of the remarks made by the minister. He has not the right to bring in new argument.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order-


Mr. POULIOT:: It is secret service, not information.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the interpretation of the words "not debatable"? When the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) attempted a few moments ago to say something in reply to the minister he was stopped; but here we have listened to a long speech by the minister and1 by the hon. member. I should like to know just what is the ruling, because if one member is to be . allowed


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -to speak at length, another hon. member must also be allowed to speak at length.	-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am speaking to the point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order; sit down.


James Horace King: Order. In answer to the hon. member, the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), may I say that it is the privilege of the hon. member who moved the motion to answer the remarks made by the hon. member who opposed the motion; but, according to the rules, he is not allowed to bring in new arguments. His remarks must be related to the argument made by the minister against his motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I wish to do, Mr. Speaker. My next point in reply to the minister is that parliament has the right and the duty to know what the Canadian information service is doing and is planning to do, and the minutes of the supervising committee contain that essential information. Therefore they must be available to parliament if parliament is to be in a position to do its duty.
In conclusion, may I say that as I interpret the remarks of the minister, the basis of the government's refusal of this essential information to parliament is adherence to the antiquated theory of the relation of this parliament to the government expounded by the Acting Prime Minister two days ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. Surelv this has gone beyond all reason. What is a debate on a motion? Standing order 51 is as follows:
Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above "Notices of Motion", under the heading "Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but it on any such motion a debate is desired-
And surely this is a debate. I have been drawn into it bv the last few words of the hon. member.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Who started it?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Quack, quack!


James Lorimer Ilsley: I continue:
-but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it shall be transferred by the Clerk to the order of Notices of Motion.
The minister is entitled to state the reasons why he opposes the motmn. I submit that if the mover desires to debate that, it must be transferred to the other list, that is, the order for notices of motion.
Motions jor Papers


Major James William Coldwell: What is the position of the minister in regard to this matter? If he refuses and a debate is required, should it not go to the bottom of the list and be debated then? There must be fairness both ways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My own opinion about that is that the minister should 'be brief and state that it is not in the public interest to comply with the request made in the motion.
The authorities recognize that he has the right to say that,-


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -he should not go much farther than that, and the matter cannot be debated any further.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why did you not call 'order"?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Quack, quack!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


James Horace King: Order. I have nothing to add to the explanation which I have given. I said that it was the privilege of the mover to explain his motion, and that it was also his privilege to answer the remarks made by the hon. member who opposed the motion. That can be done: it is not against the rules. However, the hon. member will admit that he went farther than giving an answer to the remarks made by the minister. He attempted to debate the motion. I think he should close his remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Sppaker, to be quite fair with you I do not admit that I went outside the scope of an explanation, but I bow to your rulipg. In conclusion I simply wish to say that if the supremacy of parliament means anything it means that parliament must be free to do its duty.


John Bracken: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1 was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted I wo lid have voted for the motion.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Ontario):: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



POLYMER CORPORATION

Mr. BRADSHAW:: For a copy of all contracts, agreements, letters, and/or other documents in lieu of contracts, written or entered into at any time since March 27, 1944, between Polymer Corporation Limited and Imperial Oil Limited; and between Polymer Corporation Limited and St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited.
Also, for a copy of all orders in council relating to Polymer Corporation Limited, dated since December 31, 1943.



STEVENSON AIR FIELD, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, dated since June 15, 1943, between the St. James-Winnipeg airport commission and the federal government, or any department or branch thereof, with reference to enlarging Stevenson field and/or extending the runways thereof; also for a copy of all communications, documents and memoranda, dated since June 15, 1943, in the poses-sion of the government, or any department or branch thereof, relating to the question of rerouting the Souris branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway in order to permit a northward extension of said Stevenson field at Winnipeg.


Roland Beaudry: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



ST. JAMES-WINNIPEG AIRPORT COMMISSION

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all correspondence sinte May. 1944, between the St. James-Winnipeg airport commission and the Ministers and/or Departments of Munitions and Supply, Reconstruction ana Transport.


Wilfred Kennedy "Bucko" McDonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Daniel). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Robert McCubbin: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


William Scottie Bryce: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



SWIFT CURRENT, SASK., AIR TRAINING SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
Mr, BENTLEY:
For a copy of all contracts, leases and agreements entered into by the government in the construction and maintenance of the air training school at Swift Current, Saskatchewan.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Veterans Affairs


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, of which I have given him notice. There are a number of veterans who are taking courses under the rehabilitation scheme who will have to discontinue their courses by the end of the present month because they have failed in one or more subjects. Many of these men are good and ambitious students who would be able to carry on in most of the subjects although they have had difficulty in one or more. Has the Department of Veterans Affairs given consideration to allowing otherwise good students to carry on in the regular way and receive their maintenance, providing the faculty of the university which they are attending will give approval or make recommendation to that effect?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	Some months ago an
advisory committee was appointed consisting of the presidents of several universities who are working in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The, committee met in this city yesterday and gave active consideration to this problem. I have not yet received their recommendations, but when I do s6 and a decision is made I shall immediately advise my hon. friend and the house.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such- a flag;
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to aid in the discharge of its functions; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their honours to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.
Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, last evening it seemed as if the house was a little weary of discussing this

subject, but the issue is before us and, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has well said, we must deal with it according to our best and most careful judgment. I can quite appreciate that a good many people in this countiy are anxious for a distinctive national flag. It is perhaps only natural that they should desire some svmbol of the place that we have established for ourselves in history. I think we all stand on common ground in our desire to make this country the greatest in the world. Our growth has been truly enormous, and with it our sovereignty has changed from time to time. Perhaps that is the reason why some n-ow desire that we should have a flag that will be conspicuously different from the flag we have flown in he past. We have a permanent place to-day in world affairs. Never was our place so prominent in world affairs as it is to-day. Twice during this century we were the first jountry not only on this continent but in the whole western hemisphere to declare war against an enemy to our peace and freedom, and as that greatest Britisher, Mr. Winston Churchill, has said, no country, no bond of men anywhere can more truly claim to represent the linchpin of peace and world progress than can Canada as a result of our geographical location and our international outlook which we have inherited from the motherland because we are the onlv part of the great family of British nations that is represented on this continent.
In the discussion of matters that are so close to the hearts of the people of Canada as our flag, some of the statements that have been made in this house particularly in years gone by do not, I think, represent the opinion of the majority of the people of this dominion. There may be those in the house to-day who would prefer some kind of emblem that would tend to weaken our allegiance to the British crown. With all respect for their viewpoint I say that they do not come from any particular race. Indeed I have heard those who were born in the old land, in England herself, make statements in this house to the effect that our continued association in the partnership of the British commonwealth of nations was not a dtesirable course for us to pursue indefinitely, but rather that we should grow up and be more national in our outlook and depend more upon ourselves. Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but I do not see how in the face of world conditions to-day they can wisely advocate such a course. Liberty' exists only by law itself. We must get the law from some place.
To those who say that we as a party on this side of the house have been flag wavers

Canadian Flag
in the past-that statement is not made so much following the recent great war-I say that I am proud to belong to the party so charged, because there never was a time when the people of this country, and' indeed the people of the world, realized more keenly than they do to-day what the empire has stood and stands for. Call it empire or call it an imperialism or what you will, some of my hon. friends, loyal to the core and loyal to Canada, men. who have been decorated in both great wars, still mention their objections to imperialism.
The word has grown to be a kind of parlour gibe against Britain and, indeed, against our very allegiance itself. Yet there is nothing fantastic or mysterious about empire. Some force, as I say, must lie behind our security, our freedom and our liberty. To-day there are three great empires, and with world events moving as swiftly as they are, these empires promise to be the great policemen of civilization in the future. To the south of us lies the great empire of the United States; another great empire is separated from us by no great distance, as distances are counted to-day, beyond the north pole. Is there any harmful reflection in describing these great powers as empires? Is their imperialism something which is objectionable?
In our discussions as to what any flag may represent in Canada, we have made bogeymen out of those two words, empire and imperialism, more than any two other words in the dictionary. I am not preaching imperialism. But I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and any other hon. member within the sound of my voice, would it have been better, to satisfy such parlour gibings, and to show to the world her generosity, if Britain before this war had given Malta to Italy or Gibraltar to Spain? Would the alliance of the united nations be a stronger force for world peace if Russia, in order that some of their tender feelings would not be hurt by her being called an imperialistic nation, had surrendered her strategic positions in the Baltic? Or would that third great region of power, the republic to the south of us, have been stronger, or would we have been more secure, if she had abandoned her control of the Panama canal? And as regards Canada, let her be as nationalistic as you will, as independent as you will, as great a sovereign power as we hope to be; would our survival have been rendered more certain if Great Britain, to avoid the charge of imperialism, had surrendered long ago the Suez canal or Singapore?
I mention these matters simply because I feel that our security, and the four freedoms
of which we talk so much, depend on forces which lie silently behind and assure our very liberty itself.	'
At times, I know, some of my hon. friends to your right think I am not very generous; for instance, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


William Earl Rowe: I love him just as much as I can love any Scotch Grit. I can only say that I have no apology for any position I take in this matter. I speak for myself, as the minister did when he expressed his views, or the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he addressed us last evening. I am not going to stir their ire this afternoon, although I have noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is always in better humour in the afternoons than he is in the evenings. But I must insist that this is the most important issue which will come before the house this session, in fact the most important which has arisen here since I became a member of parliament in 1925. I do not say that because of its effects on the unity of this great dominion. There, again, never has a word been more misused in the life of this young dominion than "unity". Men have been marching with the banner of unity in one hand and the stiletto of separation in the other for the last twenty-five years. I make no charges against anyone. I believe that no better omen, for unity has arisen than during these last awful years when boys from the province of Quebec, bom of the great historic French race, have died side by side with those of English race born in the province of Ontario. Men of the French-Cana-dian race have been decorated with the Victoria Cross; and I am* proud to know that behind me are two V.C.'s, one of the present and one of the last great war. No race has a monopoly of valour or of loyalty to our great purposes, and there is no occasion for bitter controversy. If my hon. friend who shakes his head has some other viewpoint, he has a perfect right to assert his belief that it is in the interests of this young dominion to become more and more independent, and that we can grow sturdier, stronger and more secure if you abolish the union jack and put in its place a flag bearing the maple leaf, which is emblematic of Canada and something to represent the traditions of the French and English races.
Mr. Speaker, the issue far transcends such considerations. I repeat that it is not a case of saving the national unity of Canada. That unity has been saved; it has been cemented
Canadian Flag

with the blood of Canadian, boys in two great wars. Do not let us believe in the bogey that this country is going to fall to pieces. Our security, our hopes and aspirations, our very existence depend on Canadians standing together. If once they fell apart, where would they go? In a time like this I do not know who would want them, no matter which section of the country had ideas of separation. We are living in a new age, and the tempo of our lives is now swifter than at any time in the last twenty years. Conditions have changed the face of the globe and brought new risks to civilization. Was there ever a time when it was so necessary to have the closest possible unity within the country and the strongest agreement on the fundamentals of security with safety to- plan for the future? What has happened? The swift aeroplanes which in 1934 were the pride of old England and served this young country in connection with the British commonwealth training scheme in its earlier stages are now obsolete. The jet-propelled planes which we see fleeting across the skies have changed the whole picture. Therefore I say we must face the realities of the present time.
I have sympathy with the government in its position. I admit that it is its prerogative to say whether or not it is going to give a directive to the committee which is to be appointed. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has said that he stands in favour of the union jack. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) says that he prefers the union jack, although he reserves his right to vote as he pleases when the committee reports. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported to have favoured the union jack on any Canadian flag, and I know that those who represent most closely the hundred thousand who have lost their lives, the Canadian Legion, would be greatly disappointed if on any flag that might be adopted in Canada the union jack did not have a prominent place. I am satisfied moreover that of the several thousand not yet back from overseas there are very few who do1 not believe that we in this house should come to a general agreement as to what shall constitute one of the major features of so important an emblem.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: What would be the hon. gentleman's idea of an agreement? He. wants the union jack on the flag. Would he be prepared to concede something else to those who want something else?


Thomas Langton Church: We are not going to be
talked out of the British empire.


Pierre Gauthier: I am asking the question of the hon. member for Dufferin-
Simeo.e.


William Earl Rowe: I tried to make my decision clear last night and before I resume my'seat I shall attempt to do so once more. As I said last night, I am not so much concerned about the precise details of this great flag. I am concerned, first, about the change, and, second, about the question whether it will weaken or strengthen this nation. I contend that our place in the sun to-day is due to the fact that we are the only representative of the British family on this hemisphere, situated as we are or might be like a nut between the jaws of a nutcracker, between Russia on the one hand and the United States on the other, if those great regional powers ever had a really serious conflict. If they had, we would be the Belgium of thirty years ago.
I may be asked, what has that to do with the question? It has this to do with it. I believe that this house should come to an agreement on the question and that the government, on an issue as important as this, an issue that was regarded as important enough to be mentioned in the speech from the throne, should give leadership to any committee that might be set up to study this matter. The government should give that leadership, and I believe that, if they did so on the floor of the house, my hon. friend and those who have other points of view would come to an agreement that the union jack should be left in the upper corner and occupy a conspicuous part of that flag. I believe that would give to the world a more uniform, expression of our part in the British commonwealth of nations, and I can think of no more glorious respect we could pay to the king in Canada, the British crown itself. To me, the union jack in the upper corner of such a flag would be emblematic of many things. It enshrines the upright cross-and this is a Christian nation. It represents the crown-ami this is a British nation.
I am not going to delay the house, but I must say that I regret very deeply that the government has not given us that lead. I regret equally that we have not seen fit as a House of Commons, although I hope we can still at this late hour agree, to have representation on that great flag of the fundamental principles that I have indicated. There has never been a time in the history of this dominion when not only those of British origin but those of the French race as well had reason to feel so proud of being members in the empire and the British commonwealth of nations.	*
I do not care what you call it. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. If the British

Canadian Flag
commonwealth of nations had not taken the stand it did in 1940; -it this country also had not declared war when it did, where would civilization be to-night? With the atomic bomb being developed as it is, where is our security for the future? Why should we be forever sniping at those to whom we owe allegiance?
I hope that any change which is made in the flag will not be interpreted by the world as an evidence that this nation is weakening. We are growing up; we are becoming stronger, and we are increasing in stature and strength because we are within the family of the British commonwealth. It is no disgrace to belong to that family. Where 'is there to-day a power like that of the British commonwealth of nations, of which we form an important part? The great French race has contributed much throughout our history toward making this country great and independent, and perhaps it is well that we should have a leveller, someone to remind us that we should grow up. But I know that we have grown up, for we are the fourth power to-day. Moreover, we stand in the unique position to which I have referred, belonging to a great world organization for peace, the greatest that civilization has ever seen, neither a regional- power like Soviet Russia nor a regional power like the great United States of America, but a world power represented in every hemisphere -in Asia, in Europe, in America and in Africa. For that reason we as Canadians can feel proud, young though -we are as nations go, in the fact that we are more international in our outlook than the United States was before the war. I say this because we have a European outlook on the one side and just as broad an outlook on the other. To-d-ay we are struggling to maintain our sovereign rights, while some are* harping about independence, so much so that at times one would think we were a power that could withstand anything in the world.
Let us agree upon something that will indicate clearly the allegiance -we owe to the British commonwealth of nations, not because some were born in Britain any more than because some were born of the great French race; no, Mr. Speaker, but for our security, for our freedom, our liberty and our very [DOT] existence let us realize that we should go with the greatest mediator of all, the one with the world outlook, the only mediator between those two great regional powers to which I have referred. Let us be in the future not only the senior dominion, and eventually the most powerful part of the commonwealth-we can be, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friends of the French race an important part of it; let us
be, as we are now, not only a part of the British family of nations, -but the very heart of it. Geographically we are located so as to make that possible; traditionally we have almost achieved that position already.
In conclusion, may -I say I am deeply disappointed- that the government' has not taken fuller responsibility on this issue. -I say that because two or three ministers have already announced that the union jack will be on any flag that is adopted-; others have not indicated where they stand. Perhaps some of the ministers have not given the matter much thought. I hope that in their quiet meditation over it in the place where they carry on most of the government, they will change their minds and give a directive to this committee, so that Canada will be represented by a flag which means at least closer association with the power without which civilization will tremble from the impact of regional powers on what will be the great powers of the future. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed; I am proud- that our country has a close allegiance to the crown. I should like to see the union jack remain as it was, but I am sorely disappointed that this government should recklessly allow this motion to go to a committee without giving any leadership in the selection of a standard identification of our young country with the greatest safeguard of civilization-the British commonwealth of nations.


Major James William Coldwell: A few days ago I spoke on the amendment. I now want to take just two or three minutes on the motion to make my position clear. I do not suppose anybody in this house has a greater love for the people of the British isles than I have; I do not suppose anyone in this house has derived more from the British isles than I have, and I want to maintain the closest association with the people of the British isles. I believe that in that association there is great good. But I also believe that the partnership of the British commonwealth must be that of free and equal partners, free -and equal peoples, none subservient to the other.
I am sometimes amazed to find that the people who in this house, and sometimes in the country, wrap themselves in the union jack, are the people who describe as foreign^ ers some of us who happened to be bom in the land to which they profess so much allegiance. I have been so characterized by some of them myself. I want to -add this, that when we are discussing this matter I take it we are discussing it in the spirit in which the motion was proposed, in the spirit in which
Canadian Flag

the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) discussed it, and in the spirit in which I discuss it myself.
The motion reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag.
It is not the function of this house at this time to choose a flag. I am often critical of the other place, but to my mind it is a distinct discourtesy to the other place, and particularly from those who profess such a respect for the other place, to rise in this chamber and suggest that either the government or this house should designate the flag which the joint committee should recommend. I also think that to make the matter a political issue is against the best interests of this country. I believe that the purpose of some of the speeches in this house has been to make this a political issue throughout Canada. I want to protest against it. This committee is to be established; this committee is to examine all the proposals for the adoption of a flag that will meet the wishes of the majority of the people of this country, and therefore the committee should be free to recommend whatever flag it decides to choose. If it is the will of the Canadian people, and I rather anticipate it will be, that the union jack shall be a part of that flag, then I have no doubt whatsoever that this house will adopt the flag so recommended. But let us keep this matter clear. This debate is unreal; it should not have taken place at this time. The debate has consumed three days, in which time a great deal of froth has appeared on the top of otherwise empty pails, if I may put it that way, and I only wish we could blow it all away and forget all about it, because it will do much more harm than good.
Let us establish, this committee. Let us say to that committee: You are charged with recommending to parliament, and to both houses of parliament, a suitable design for a flag. Then, when we have that recommendation, we can come to a decision. If we do not like it, we can turn it down and1 appoint another committee, or the government can come before the house with a proposal for a flag. Let us forget all these emotional appeals which have not meant anything at all. I do not believe carrying on my sleeve my love for my country. It has been said many times that that kind of patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel, political scoundrels as well as every other kind of scoundrel. I want to protest against it, because I have been challenged in this house. None can challenge my

loyalty to this country or to those who nurtured me as a child and gave me the opportunity to receive the education and so on that I possess. I protest against this sort of thing. Let us discuss this in a reasonable and proper manner; let us refer it to the committee, and let this house judge, when we ' receive the committee report, whether or not it is the one that we should1 adopt.
Mr. NORMAN J. A. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): It is not my intention to delay the house for more than a few minutes, but I am glad of the opportunity to say just a word in reply to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. group. I wonder whether he is treading on a very narrow margin when he imputes motives to some who have spoken in behalf of or against this resolution. I say to him in all sincerity that I do not think he can claim any more loyalty or allegiance to Canada or to the motherland than any other hon. member who has spoken. I think that every man has been sincere-


Major James William Coldwell: I was very careful not to do that. I object to anyone trying to pretend something else.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I do not question the sincerity of any hon. member who has spoken in this debate, and that is the reason I rise now to say a few words-and this may be the last speech; I do not know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope so.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am here to reflect if possible the thoughts of the people whom we are here individually to represent. I happen to come from perhaps the most southerly section of this country, a section in which in the early days of Canada, long before confederation, many thousands of United Empire Loyalists gathered together and formed what was then known as Upper Canada, with its seat of government in the old town of Newark, now known as Niagara-on-the-Lake. I know that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who represents a great part of that southern peninsula in Ontario, would join with me in many of the utterances I might make in that connection.


Humphrey Mitchell: Good people; the salt of the earth.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is no question about it. I am glad the minister agrees with me in that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In that district arose such great names as the Secords, the Services,

Canadian Flag
the Chryslers, the Butlers and many more. Anyone here who knows the history of Canada will not soon forget what was done by Butler's Rangers in the wars of long ago. Many other such names can be recited. Nor could I overlook the name of that family which had to do with the development of one of the greatest transportation systems in this country, the ship canal through the Niagara peninsula. The founders and promoters of that system were none other than the ancestors of the distinguished and hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) -I refer to the Merritt family.
So I say I have just claim to the right to try and reflect the minds of those people. By letter, telegram and resolution I have received definite instruction to oppose any change whatsoever in the Canadian flag, and to object to the introduction of a resolution of this kind. I believe some of those people to a large extent have been moved by sentiment. I know, however, that they are a reasonable and a wonderful people, and they will understand the situation confronting us. The people back there are descended from those who fought and died in the pioneer days of this country. One can come only to that conclusion after viewing the monuments at Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane, Beaver Dam and Chrysler's Farm and many more, all of which have been erected to commemorate the heroes of those early days.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And Stoney .Creek.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Yes, and Stoney Creek. Those monuments look down upon a new generation, a generation with slightly different ideals. But the old traditions still exist.
I had originally intended to oppose this resolution. I have given the matter careful thought. One reason for my opposition might have been that there are more serious problems confronting us, such as housing, the rehabilitation of veterans and the like, and that such matters should have priority in our debates. The government has taken the responsibility of introducing the resolution. I am not going to take time to spread it on the record again, because many hon. members have already done so. Some of the ministers of the crown have laid emphasis on the value of speeding up the business of the house, and with what they have said in that respect I am heartily in accord. But I did like the note sounded last night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he urged that hon. members should try to place this matter far above the realm of party politics. I am attempting to show how groups who can rightly number themselves
among the very pioneers of Canada can be moved by sentiment to give utterance to certain expressions which, after a little thought, they might possibly moderate to some extent.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) presented the resolution in a most capable way. At this point I must take exception again to what has been said by the leader of the C.C.F. I say the government knew the traditions and background of the people of this country, and it had a perfect right to give some direction. I disagree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in that respect. Had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) been here I am sure he would not have gone back on his statement, which was placed1 on the record by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Had he been in the house, rather than away from Ottawa and engaged in other major deliberations, I am sure he would not have reversed his opinion so quickly as all that. May I quote only one sentence from what he said: "The new Canadian flag should certainly contain the union jack." To my mind the word "certainly" is most emphatic, and I believe the sentence I have quoted reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs, too, touched upon this point, and also made specific reference to the possibility of using the Canadian red ensign as our flag. I commend him for that, because it shows the general tendency. Then the Minister of Justice made this significant reference-and I am sure he meant every word he said-
If a committee is chosen to select a suitable design for a flag that will be a distinctive national flag for Canada, I would be very much surprised and, I may add, disappointed, if a majority of that committee did not have the same feeling about it that the Prime Minister expressed in his declaration to 'this delegation from the Legion.
Those were the words used by the Minister of Justice when he referred to the Prime Minister's declaration.
We now reach the point where we must make a decision on the resolution. There has been delay , by members of the government in giving explicit direction in accordance with the views of the Prime Minister as expressed. I am sure that had the Prime Minister been here he would have repeated what he said to the Legion. I suggest we should have had better direction from the responsible ministers. In the last analysis, while the Minister of Justice said he was speaking only for himself, the people of Canada look upon him as a responsible and senior minister of the crown. There is no question that his words will be
Canadian Flag

considered as words of guidance to the committee. I say that with all due respect for his statement that he is only voicing his personal opinion.
We have reached a point where matters in connection with this resolution should be clarified. When the average citizen reads the words of a responsible minister he understands those words as having a bearing upon the destiny of this nation. My constituency and that of the Minister of Labour form one of the great settlements possessing some of the oldest traditions of Canada. Those people fought and died, I repeat, under the union jack. The old tradition is still there, and it must be recognized. And that is not the only part of Canada that can lay claim to having such traditions.
Reference has been made to the words of the Prime Minister, and we have listened to the splendid presentation 'by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who went so far as to mention the possibility of using the Canadian red ensign as a distinctive Canadian flag. The Minister of Justice has given us his personal opinion. All this will have a bearing upon the actions of the committee.
I have done my best to broaden the viewpoint of the people of my particular district, people whose blood has been shed in defence of the union jack. I am prepared to go back to them and show that' the time perhaps has arrived when we should have some distinctive emblem for the Canadian people. But I ask that the responsible ministers of the crown who have expressed themselves to some extent should make sure that those ideas are conveyed to and impressed upon the committee. The fullest recognition must be given to the flag under which practically all of the people of this country have been reared. I will be one hundred per cent opposed to any report coming from this committee which does not maintain these traditions in the selection of a Canadian flag.
I will support the motion to send this matter to a committee. I commend the ministers who have spoken, somewhat vaguely I am sorry to say, and given some direction to the committee. I shall be interested to see what the committee brings before this house. In the meantime I intend to support the motion and will do my best to satisfy the people who may appear a little extreme in their views.
I believe that this is a matter of the greatest importance to this country. I know there are sections of the country which are just burning up over this question. Our soldier boys who are coming back want to see this question settled in the way indicated by most of the expressions of opinion here, including

those of many members of the government. I admonish the ministers of the government and those who will be on this committee that in selecting a distinctive Canadian flag they must give one hundred per cent preference to the use of the union jack; they must see that it is embodied in any Canadian flag that may be adopted in the future.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, before this debate concludes I wish to make a brief statement on the general position of the party I have the honour to lead, in connection with the matter before us. Before making that statement I wish to say a word of sincere commendation to all those who have taken part in the debate. In doing so I impute no unworthy motive to anyone who has spoken and I ask only that no unworthy motive be imputed to me or to those for whom I speak.
If I may summarize briefly the discussion to which we have listened now for two days or more, it is that three points of view have been presented. First, there are those who would prefer to retain the union jack and have nothing else as Canada's flag. Second, there are those who would have the union jack as no part of a national flag. Third, there are those who are willing to have a distinctive flag and to make some compromise to have it.
Before I state our position I wish again to commend the frankness, the sincerity and the obvious desire for unity on the part of all who have spoken. Many disagreed1; all cannot have their way, but all held their views honestly and have presented them as they saw them. Personally I do not think either of the extremes I have mentioned is as generally acceptable to this house as the middle course, so that I find myself aligned with those who favour a distinctive flag for Canada on the condition that there be no discourtesy shown to the old flag, on the condition that the old flag will not be discarded or relegated to a position of inferiority in the flag decided upon.
For two days now we have listened to a debate on the question before us. The views of the party I have the honour to lead were expressed on Thursday last in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). It is our view that the time of the members of this house would have been conserved and the objective of the government achieved by an acceptance of that amendment. That procedure would not only have saved the time of the house, but would have avoided contention and delay in the committee.
It is our view that the Canadian red ensign, with the union jack in the upper left-hand corner and the Canadian coat of arms in the

Canadian Flag
fly, is the flag which might well have been adapted by this parliament as the distinctive flag of this country. As I have said, if that had been done this house could have saved a great deal of time for the consideration of the mass of other important measures which the government has brought down or proposes to bring down this session.
But the government chose not to have it that way. Our amendment was ruled out of order by His Honour the Speaker, and on our appealing against the Speaker's ruling the government voted solidly against us.
We then advanced a second amendment, the one moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the committee proposed to be set up be instructedi to include the union jack in a prominent place in the design of the flag that it determines upon. The Speaker ruled that amendment out of order. On our appealing against his ruling, the government again voted against us and our second proposal, like the first, was denied. We have thus stated our general position quite clearly. Both our amendments have been opposed. We are therefore left with two alternatives. We can either oppose the government's resolution, or we can support its proposal, a proposal which gives no instructions whatever to the committee as to the general character of the flag.
As the house will have gathered, if we vote for this resolution, it will be on one consideration only, namely, the expectation that the union jack will be in a prominent place on the flag decided upon. We suggested on Thursday last that the Canadian red ensign, with the union jack in the upper left-hand corner and the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, might well be Canada's distinctive flag.
That, in brief, is our position. We feel that there is every justification for retaining the union jack in any distinctive Canadian flag, and we feel also that there is justification to have associated' with it some distinctive Canadian feature, such as the Canadian coat of arms, or as some desire, the maple leaf. With these two principles we are in agreement.
Our position on this question was to have been determined by the attitude of the government with respect to the union jack. It had been our intention, if the government refused to give us positive assurance with respect to the union jack in any distinctive Canadian flag, to vote against the resolution. We had hoped for a definite declaration from the government which brought forward this resolution as a government measure. We have not had a definite declaration, but we have received some indication from the Minister
of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that a majority of the committee is likely to approve the main suggestion we have made.
On that interpretation of the minister's remarks, we have decided to support the resolution. If, however, the committee should report against having the union jack in a prominent position on a Canadian flag, we shall oppose the report when it comes back to this house. It is on these grounds that we have decided not to oppose sending the matter to a committee.


Thomas Langton Church: You won't pull down the
flag on my vote.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion with the word "expedient" omitted.


William Edmund Newton Sinclair: I was paired
with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MeDONALD (Parry Sound): I was paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Daniel). Had I voted, I wiuld have voted for the motion.



TRANSPORT ACT, 1938 JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN WATER CARRIERS IN MACKENZIE RIVER AREA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of bill No. 32, to amend the Transport Act, 1938.
John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister is not
going to give an explanation I have something to say.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I am prepared to give
an explanation on the second reading of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: We want copies of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Copies have been distributed. The purport of the bill is to amend the Transport Act so as to bring within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners certain water carriers operating in the Mackenzie river area. The bill amends chapter 53, an act to establish a Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft, which was passed in 1938.


Thomas Langton Church: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that no copies of the bill have been tabled and it is the duty of the minister to see that bills are on the table.


James Horace King: The bill has been distributed.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason for the
amendment is that certain complaints have been received from shippers in the northwest territories with reference to freight charges by certain carriers. These shippers maintain that the rates in that area are too high. The main carriers in the Mackenzie river district, I am informed., are the Northern Transportation company which, as the house knows, is a subsidiary of Eldorado, the Hudson's Bay company and Yellowknife Transportation. The complaints, while they have to do with general freight, refer particularly to the transportation of fuel and bunker oil, and with reference to these it is stated that the freight north-bound1 front Edmonton and waterways and from then on down the Mackenzie river through to the Yellowknife district and the Eldorado district, consists mostly of food, building materials, manufactured products and general supplies for consumption by the population in the territories. The traffic south-bound consists mainly of furs, pitchblende concentrates for Port Hope, and bunker oil; and1, as I said a moment ago, it is with respect to bunker oil that we have received the complaints. Bunker oil, as the

Transport Act
house knows, comes from Norman Wells and is used at Yellowknife. The freight rate for bunker oil was $20 a ton last year. It has been increased to $30 a ton this year. It is felt by the mining interests in the area that this increased freight rate will have a deterring effect upon the mining interests.
The Yellowknife country possesses tremendous possibilities for the creation of employment and new wealth. This part of the northwest territories holds out great promise for Canadian expansion. Normally all boats proceeding north-bound to Eldorado and Aklavik are sent down the river fully loaded; on their return trip they handle, besides the concentrates that come from Eldorado, the oil to which I referred a moment ago.
The only object of this bill is to place under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners these carriers so that their charges, freight and the rest, can be regulated by the board in the same manner and to the same extent as they are regulated on the great lakes.
The Northern Transportation company, which is a subsidiary of Eldorado and which was taken over by the government in 1944, operates as a carrier in that area, and in 1945 the auditor general of Canada advised the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) that his examination of the 1944 accounts disclosed a considerable operating loss owing to inadequate freight rates. The department had therefore to decide whether to bring the rates up to where they would command a reasonable profit or whether they should remain as they were and obtain a subsidy for the service. It. was decided to follow the first policy, and an agreement was entered into between a number of the carriers with reference to the freight rates. It is to these rates that the management of certain mining companies objected. The government, faced with the problem, decided that the best policy was to place the whole matter under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners, and give to it the same authority and jurisdiction in the northwest territories as they have on the great lakes.
If the nouse looks at the proposed amendments to the bill it will see that they are not lengthy. The first one adds to the definition of the original act a description of the Mackenzie river. The next has to do with the meaning of a ship. That already is in section 2 of the act. but in two different parts. This section joins these two parts and states that ship means every description of vessel, et cetera, exceeding ten gross tons used in navigation on the Mackenzie river, and it completes the description by including that
same part as was in paragraph (m) of section 2 of the act. The other three amendments simply bring into operation part II, part IV and part V of the Act in so far as the Mackenzie river district is concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish
to call the attention of the house to the transfer in 1938 of the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada to a new body known as the transportation board. The first thing I should like to find out from the minister is something about the board of transport commissioners. We have not heard very much about them during the war. They have jurisdiction over railways, telephone companies, express companies and all these institutions. They have power, on their own volition, to regulate rates, and to make investigations of their own volition. They have not done so. A large amount of money is being made during the war by these companies.
I think the Transport Act should be brought up to date and revised and consolidated. It is not up to date. Is this bill the only jurisdiction the board has over waterborne traffic? A few yearn ago it was proposed to give them jurisdiction out on the Atlantic, extraterritorial jurisdiction over ships belonging to Canada. We had a debate on this principle in this house on the Peterson contract some years ago. Water-borne traffic has never been very much under the control of any public body or public regulation in Canada. This bill refers to the Mackenzie river. I think t'he minister should consider consolidating the Transport Act in' view of modern conditions. When the board of railway commissioners was first established it did not have any jurisdiction over telephone companies and express companies. That was added later. Transportation conditions have changed; they changed with the motor bus and the motor truck. I understand that these have not been brought under public control; they are very largely under provincial control through the issuing of motor licences. In my opinion the -whole statute should be consolidated, as should the criminal code. Now that the war is over, all these statutes should be consolidated and brought up to date. I suggest to the minister that he should bring in some policy regarding motor buses and motor trucks in the interprovincial trade. Many of these vehicles run between provinces.
Now that the war is over, I hope that, the board of transport commissioners will be up and doing and try to carry out the statutes they are appointed to regulate, which they are not doing at the present time.
The Royal Assent


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to speak at any length at the moment. I just wish to say that I am glad the minister is taking an interest in that great north country, a country which I fairly love, having covered a great deal of it. I am sure that something will come out of the bill. I cannot say just now what I should like to say.
On motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Charles H. Larose, Esquire, Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy Administrator, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in- the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
An act to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
An act to amend the Canadian National Rail ways Capital Revision Act, 1937.
An act for granting to His Majesty certair sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
Thursday, November 15, 1945.