1945-12-17

THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on the order for motions I would crave the indulgence of the house to mention a matter which I think is of interest to all members. I see by the press this morning and 'by other evidences in this chamber that one among out number is celebrating an important event; and so before we begin this busy day, I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon achieving another anniversary in a very active life.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister welcomes these recurring anniversaries any more than the rest of us, but I suppose there is nothing we cam do about it, and so we have to accept them as they come. May I compliment the Prime Minister upon attaining the ripe age of seventy-one years. I am sure that all other horn, members of this house will wish him many happy returns of this day.
Some of us could have hoped that he might have made fewer mistakes in the last half of
3628	COMMONS
Prime Minister-Birthday Greetings
that busy life and have avoided some of the errors that have come his way; but on an occasion like this we forget those errors and overlook those mistakes, seeing only the bright spots and the attainments of a busy, happy and successful life.
I am pleased to join with others in wishing the Prime Minister many happy returns of the day; and I am sure we all trust that he will have buoyant health so that he may enjoy them all.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am sure the group with which I am associated would wish to join with the leader of the opposition in congratulating the Prime Minister on the achievement of another birthday. It seems to me that we regard the coming years from three points of view. When we are young they do not come around fast enough; then we reach the stage where we feel they are coming too fast; then later we come to the stage where we boast about our old age. I am glad that the Prime Minister is still in the second stage, when he is enjoying life to the extent that he feels the years are going by too fast.
As regards the mistakes he has made in the past, without detracting from anything I have said, or anything that the leader of the opposition has said, I trust that the right hon. gentleman will avoid the opportunities for bo many mistakes in the future.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it gives us in this corner of the house great pleasure to associate ourselves with the congratulations which have been extended to the Prime Minister by the leader of the opposition. We have noted the recurrence of youthful appearance and the resurgence of spirit in the Prime Minister, and we wonder if his trip to the old country, to which we all cheerfully agreed, did not have something to do with it. Since he came back we have noted, sir, the resurgence of which I speak. Perhaps the best evidence of it that I could mention at this time would be the rousing speech he gave in the house the other day, when he upheld the dignity ,of this parliament and put forth his arguments in behalf of the independence of parliament. I thought it was a splendid speech, and I want to congratulate him upon it.
It is not often, I am sure, that a parliament has the opportunity to extend congratulations to a Prime Minister who has been in service so long as has the Prime Minister of Canada, and who has served with such great distinction. In the circumstances, sir, since he has reached the ripe age-I am not going to say "ripe old age" because I should hate to get into a tussle with him right now-of seventy-one in the

service of his country, it seems to me that if anyone is entitled to what is known as the Canada Medal, the Prime Minister is entitled to it. I am just offering the suggestion that some action might be taken at this time to see that this medal is presented to the Prime Minister, and certainly I would concur in that recognition.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I am very happy to extend my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister on this event, and I am also happy to extend best wishes to the right hon. gentleman on behalf of my father, who has been a supporter of the Liberal party for seventy years.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Perhaps I might be permitted by my colleagues here, because for the moment we know no parties in this house, to join in these very happy expressions of congratulations to one of the greatest Canadians of all time. We who have worked with him, who know the great story of his life, who know the promise of the dawn, the fulfilment at noontide and the notable achievements of the mellow afternoon, wish for him, now that he is approaching the twilight, happiness, health, peace, and sweet content.
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister
of Justice) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all the hon. members of this house whose mother tongue is that one of the two official languages of this country which has not yet been used this morning for the purpose of congratulating the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) are anxious that we should tell him in French how much we share in his joyous feelings on this anniversary, and with what sincerity and true affection we associate ourselves with the other hon. members of the house in complimenting him not only on having reached the age of 71, but also on having achieved the wonderful work which has marked his whole career, and in wishing that he may long continue to enjoy good health so that he may perform many other meritorious deeds in the interests of the Canadian nation.
(Text.)


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour and other hon. members of the house will probably realize why I was so anxious that this house should get through its business in time to permit of prorogation on Saturday night. I do indeed feel at the moment that it is almost easier to endure criticism than to receive praise in public. However, I should be less than human were I not very deeply

Prime Minister-Birthday Greetings
touched by the words of friendship and regard which have been expressed this morning by the leaders who have spoken on behalf of all parties and by the member for Kootenay West. I thank my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken); my hon. friend for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who is leading the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low); and my very close friends, the minister of veterans affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and the leader of my party in the province of Quebec (Mr. St. Laurent), and all here assembled, for the tributes so generously paid to me this morning.
May I take advantage of this opportunity not only to thank hon. members of this house for the good wishes they have extended but also members of the other house of parliament, my friends in the press gallery, officials of my own department and other departments of the service and many others for expressions of good will they have sent to me at this time. I am sorry that thus far I have not had, and I doubt if I shall have this week or perhaps at all, an opportunity to convey my thanks personally, but I shall be happy if this word might be regarded as a very sincere expression of thanks to those in my own country and those in other countries who have been kind enough to send me birthday greetings.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said something about my mistakes in the past, and hopes that I will not make many more in the future. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East also made some reference to my mistakes. Well, I thank the Lord that I have not made as many mistakes as they have made. Though I have lived a longer time I feel pretty sure my mistakes have been fewer than theirs. However, I wish for them what they have wished for me, that they may make fewer mistakes in the future.
May I say a word about the references which have been made to what some have said seems to be an evidence of renewed youth and vigour and strength. I must confess that I do feel in better health than I have felt in many years, despite the fact that I am seventy-one years old to-day. If hon. members will reflect for a moment they will see immediately the reason for this. No man in the position of responsibility I have held during the past six or eight years could possibly expect to feel other than more than burdened by the load of responsibility he was carrying. All during the war I was very concious of the fact that much of my real self was being repressed, and necessarily so, because of an unwillingness to say a word or do any thing which might, however great the provocation, occasion the least strife
or increase opposition between parties in this house and in the country. During the period of the war I often wished that I could let loose on some hon. gentlemen opposite, but at the time I realized that I was the leader of a party government and that there were other parties in this house, so that much I should like to have said in answer to what seemed to me most unfair criticisms of the administration, I felt I should refrain from saying, and endure in silence. Repression is not good for anyone, particularly in the matter of speaking one's own mind. I confess that not infrequently I felt a bit ahamed of myself sitting here and listening without retort to some of the very unfair and unjust criticisms which were made from time to time. But if it helped to get through that period as well as we did, then it was all to the good.
However, the real burden was not that. It was the thought that was shared by all hon. members and by the people of Canada generally of the terrible suffering being endured and the appalling loss of life incurred by our fellow countrymen and by men and women throughout the world. The burden of that thought was great indeed; to realize that to-day. all that is in the past is to be freed of a load the like of which has not had to be borne at any other time.
May I say that the year immediately preceding the war was even harder to endure than the actual war years. Often I felt at that time that something terrible was coming, something in the nature of colossal catastrophe for mankind, that- one would have to make decisions of a nature which might affect the course of events for centuries to come. In those days the load was much heavier than it was when, as between the contending forces of good and evil, came the opportunity to fight it out.
Now the war is over, and we have won. Canada has won a glorious place among the nations of the world, and the men and women of our armed services have fought a battle unsurpassed by the men and women of any other country. In this outcome one naturally feels great cause to rejoice.
I feel particularly happy when I think of what Canada accomplished during the period of the war and of what our country is doing in helping to relieve distress in the world to-dav.
May I say to the members of my own party who have presented me with the beautiful flowers that are before me, that I deeply appreciate the sentiment to which they have given such generous expression in flowers, but which they have been too modest to express in words.
Questions

Just a word in conclusion. Looking to the future I feel more optimistic at this hour than I have at any time. Over the troubled waters of our day, I see on the horizon of the future the beginning of a new world order. There is much to cause alarm and concern; but I believe the heart of the world is more sensitive to the needs of mankind to-day than it has been at any previous time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	What is the total staff employed in the offices of the Department of National Revenue at (a) Ottawa; (b) Montreal; (c) Quebec?
2.	How many (a) French-speaking employees; (b) English-speaking employees are paid $2,000 or more per year in the said offices?


Mr. McCANN:: Customs and Excise	Divisions:	
1. (a) 556 (b)	551 (c)	96	(a)	(b)2. Ottawa 	
26	171Montreal 	
61	57Quebec 	
43	4Taxation Division: 1. (a) 1,128 (b)	1,315 (c)	211	(a)	(b)2. Ottawa	
30	186Montreal	
179	121Quebec	
38	36CIVIL SERVICE-REPLACEMENT AT AGE 65 BY '	VETERANS


Mr. THATCHER:: Has the government taken any steps since the end of the war to retire civil service employees aged 65 or over, and replace them with service veterans?


Mr. MARTIN:: Perhaps I might be permitted to reply orally to this question. Steps are being taken in many instances to effect retirement so as to provide vacancies for veterans.


TAXES ON BEER AND SPIRITS
Mr. BLACK:: (Yukon):
Of each dollar paid in purchase of alcoholic liquor and beer from provincial -and territorial liquor vendors, how much of that dollar goes -to
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
(a) the dominion government in various imposts, taxes and duties; (b) the provincial and territorial governments; (e) the distiller, brewer or manufacturer of said liquor or beer?


James Joseph McCann: It is not possible to give
a categorical answer to this question by reason of the variation which exists between the provinces.
A break-down of each dollar paid for the purchase of a wellr-known brand- of spirits in one of the provinces discloses the following distribution, which may perhaps be taken as approximating the average:
(a) To the dominion government
for	duty and taxes	41c(b)	To	the	provincial	liquor controlboard'	38c(c)	To	the	distiller	21c
Beer is sold1 at such different prices and
under such variable systems of distribution as to make it difficult to strike an average which would represent a fair statement.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Has the War Assets Corporation received a request from the city of Moose Jaw for fire
ucks or other equipment now stored at No. 2 .E.M.U.?	.	.
2.	If so, on what date did it receive the request?
3.	What -action has been taken to date in regard to the request?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	Yes, a request has been received from the city of Moose Jaw for fire trucks stored at No. 2 R.E.M.U.
2.	October 6, 1945.
3.	This enquiry was acknowledged on October 13, 1945. The fire trucks have not been declared surplus to War Assets Corporation to date.


RAILWAY SIDINGS FOR STORAGE OF WAR MATERIALS
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	Was any land in the east part of the city of London, or in the riding of East Middlesex -acquired, bought or leased for the construction of Canadian Pacific Railway and -Canadian National Railway sidings, for the -purpose of storing of surplus or outdated w-a-r materials?
2.	If so, what parcels of land -and from whom were they purchased?
3.	What price was paid for each?
4.	What was the total cost -to the government for land and construction?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	No. Various properties were leased by the Canadian National and- Canadian Pacific Railways for storing Canadian government purchased -material, -an-d the railways were reimbursed by the Canadian government.

Questions
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	The cost to the Canadian government was as follows:
Rent of leased property, C.P.R., $975.42; C.N.R., $1,795.00; total, $2,770.42.
Construction, C.P.R., $25,722.84;	C.N.R.,
$45,437.71; total, $71,160.55.


SECOND CANADIAN DIVISION-N.M.R.A. PERSONNEL
Mr. GREEN:: What number and percentage of each unit of the Second Canadian Division returning to Canada were N.M.R.A. personnel?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Royal Canadian Artillery	Total	Percentage of NRMA(Field)	NRMA	to -total2 Cdn. Fd. Bty	6	6-745 Cdn. Fd. Bty	4	5-8813 Cdn. Fd. Bty	6	4-5114 Cdn. Fd. Bty	4	4-4919 Cdn. Fd. Bty	4	5-8821 Cdn. Fd. Bty	8	8-7926 Cdn. Fd. Bty	3	3-1628 Cdn. Fd. Bty	2	1-3373 Cdn. Fd. Bty	7	9-7292 Cdn. Fd. Bty	4	4-34Anti-Tank 18 Cdn. Anti-Tank Bty.	9	10-3420 Cdn. Anti-Tank Bty.	Nil	Nil23 Cdn. Anti-Tank Bty.	3	7-5Light Anti-Aircraft 16 Canadian Light AntiAircraft Battery 	3	3-3317 Canadian Light AntiAircraft Battery 	4	7-0138 Canadian Light AntiAircraft Battery 	12	15-78Royal Canadian Engineers 2 Cdn. Fd. Coy	6	2-2611 Cdn. Fd. Cov	12	7-79Canadian Infantry Corps Essex Scottish Regiment	110	20-95Royal Rgt. of Canada...	99	18-23Royal Hamilton Light Infant-ry 	85	18-39Royal Highlanders of Canada 	47	10-65Calgary Highlanders ....	170	36-48Rgt. de Maisonneuve .	. 147	31-61Camerons of Canada ...	120	25-64South Saskatchewan Rgt.	202	36-52Fusiliers Mount Royal ..	131	23-18Toronto Scottish (MG)	44	10-948 Cdn. Reconnaissance ..	24	10-38


PAMPHLET &quot;CANADIAN AFFAIRS&quot;
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Has distribution of the pamphlet "Canadian Affairs" been withdrawn from civilian groups and individuals?
2.	If so, what reason is given for this step?
3.	How many copies of "Canadian Affairs'' have been requested by civilian groups and individuals in the past three months?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	Yes. A notice to this effect appeared in the issue of "Canadian Affairs" (Vol. 2 No. 16) dated October 1st, 1945.
2.	P.C. 6300 of September 28, 1945, establishing the Canadian Information Service, authorized it "To provide means and facilities for distributing abroad information concerning Canada". Distribution of "Canadian Affairs" by the Canadian information service is only being made in Canada to civilian groups and individuals from the remaining stock of the former wartime information board. Distribution of current issues outside Canada is continuing.
3.	Erom September 1 to December 11 the following quantities of "Canadian Affairs" have been supplied, on request, to civilian groups and individuals:
Inside Abroad Canada
Canadian Affairs. . . . 52,226	6,701
Affaires Canadiennes. . . 11,103	274
63,329	6,975
Most of this quantity has been supplied to Canadian groups and individuals who have wished to complete sets of the publication up to the time domestic distribution ceased or from groups wishing quantities of back numbers for winter study programmes.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	Under the Soldier Settlement Board legislation, how many mortgages were secured on land owned by veterans at the time they purchased land from the board?
2.	Since the inception of the scheme to date, how many foreclosures on the above-mentioned mortgages took place?
3.	What is the name and address of those settlers -against whom foreclosure proceedings were instituted -and who finally were dispossessed of their land?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Answered by sessional paper 118B tabled on December 13, 1945.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Is the National Housing Administration Conversion plan being extended in Canada
2.	If not, when did the extension cease, and
why?	.
3.	How many homes were converted in Canada under this plan to December 1, 1945?
4.	How many in the area of Hamilton, Ontario ?

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	What has been the cost of conversion of such houses in the Hamilton area?
6.	How many inspectors, janitors and other persons are or have been employed in connection with the operation of this plan in the Hamilton area?
7.	Who are they, and what amount is being or has been paid to each of them in salary and expenses ?


FORESTRY ROADS
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	Did the federal government make contributions towards the construction costs of provincial projects for construction of forestry roads for any of the years 1936 to 1940 inclusive?
2.	If so, what were the total contributions for each year in each province?


CRUMLIN, ONT., AIRPORT
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	What lands were acquired for the extension of R.C.A.F. air port at Orumlin, Ontario, other than the then existing London air port?
2.	From whom were they purchased?
3.	What was the acreage?
4.	What was the price paid for the land?
5.	Were any of the former owners extended an option of repurchase when not required further by the government?
6.	Has any of this property, hangars, or buildings thereon been declared surplus?
7.	What will be the ultimate disposal of these properties and buildings?
8.	What township or county roads were closed in the extension of this ah- port?
9.	Was reimbursement made (a) to the town-ships_ of West Nissouri, London, or the county of Middlesex for closing of roads; (b) to private individuals for damage or inconvenience?
10.	If so, to whom?
11.	What amounts were paid to each?
12.	What properties were purchased for right of way for new road from the third concession, London township to second concession, West Nissouri?
13.	From whom were these properties purchased ?
14.	What price was paid for each?
15.	What was the total mileage of new road?
16.	What was the total cost of construction?
17.	Has the upkeep and maintenance of the new road been assumed by townships interested or by the county of Middlesex?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Return tabled.



ATOMIC ENERGY


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament^ do approve the agreed declaration on atomic energy signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister of Canada, at Washington on November 15, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is being asked by the motion now before it to approve the agreed declaration on atomic

energy which was signed at the White House, Washington, on the 15th of November of this year, by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada.
The statement which embodies the declaration was read' to hon. members of this house by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on the afternoon of the day on which the declaration was made. Copies of the declaration in English and in French were tabled in pamphlet form on December 1. The declaration has received the widest publicity. I think it may be truly said that it has met with general approval.
As the declaration is one of far-reaching significance and historic interest, it is desirable that it should be formally approved by both houses of our parliament. Apart from other positive advantages, such approval should serve effectively to meet the criticism that the Prime Minister of Canada in joining with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States in the discussions at Washington and in signing the declaration "either assumed that parliament and' the Canadian people had no views on the atomic bomb question or that their views didn't matter; that it was within his sole right and power to determine what should be done." I am happy to say that this uncalled for criticism seems to have met only with the rebuke it so obviously deserves.
No discovery, in all time, has equalled in interest that of the release of atomic energy. No discovery has been fraught with possibilities which may prove to be either so baneful or so beneficial to mankind.
It may serve as a helpful introduction to an understanding of the problems which the discovery of atomic energy has created, if I say a word or two concerning the discovery itself, and the circumstances which led to the part the release of atomic energy came to have in military warfare. My introductory words may also help to give some idea of Canada's contribution to atomic research and processes, and to explain the strategic position which Canada, along with the United Kingdom and the United States, has come to hold in working towards a solution of problems to which the use of atomic energy has given rise.
All the world now knows that the sudden termination of the war against Japan was due to the appalling destruction of life and property wrought, in August of the present year, by the use of the atomic bomb against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Until recently the world believed that the atom was the ultimate indivisible particle of

Atomic Energy Declaration
matter; a particle of matter so minute as to admit of no division. When the war began in 1939, scientists of many nations had come to recognize that the release of energy by the "splitting" of the atom, or what is scientifically referred to as "atomic fission" was a possibility. The war gave impetus to research into the means of releasing atomic energy and later to the production of atomic bombs.
At the outset, research was carried on mainly in the universities of the United Kingdom. During 1940 there was an interchange of information on war research between Britain, the United States and Canada. By the summer of 1941 such progress had been made in research in the application of atomic energy that it was felt that full use should be made of university and industrial laboratories in seeking to find, just as rapidly as possible, the means of producing atomic bombs. In October of 1941, upon the suggestion of President Roosevelt, there began a coordination and joint conduct of British and American efforts. In 1942 the United Kingdom authorities proposed that an important section of research into atomic energy should be carried on in Canada as a joint enterprise. The special Montreal laboratory of the national research council was thereafter organized, and staffed by over 300 workers. It was by far the largest organization ever created in Canada to carry out a single research project. Other research projects were undertaken at McMaster, Toronto and McGill universities, and at the national research aboratories in Ottawa.
Developments in the United States and Canada. By the summer of 1942, the expanded program of research seemed to justify a decision to proceed with the construction of large-scale production plants in the United States. The Americans alone were active in large-scale work.
At Quebec, in September 1943, an agreement was signed between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt which bound their two countries to collaborate with the object of producing, as quickly as possible, a military weapon for use in the war. Under this agreement a combined policy committee was set up. Upon the invitation of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, in which I had concurred, Mr. Howe, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, was made a member of the combined policy committee as the representative of Canada.
Up to the present, uranium is the mineral that has been used as basic material for the atomic bomb process. Thorium is a probable second basic material for that purpose, although it is not as yet a proven material.
The largest proved deposit of uranium ore is in the Belgian Congo, and the next largest is in Canada. As soon as the significant use of uranium in the atomic bomb process was disclosed to Mr. Howe and myself, we secured the approval of the cabinet of the purchase of the Eldorado uranium properties in the Great Bear lake area, and reserved for the government control of all such minerals as might be discovered in Canada in the future. This was a strategic factor of high importance, since this second largest known source of raw material thereby became accessible to the large manufacturing plants already built in the United States.
The work of the several research projects has been closely coordinated with the development of a pilot plant at Chalk River for the investigation of atomic energy processes. This work is of considerable importance. It includes the study of the utilization of thorium as a starting point for the production of "active material". This pilot plant is unique in character and is suitable for a field of research that has not been explored elsewhere.
Here may I quote from a statement prepared by Mr. Churchill while he was at the head of the coalition government. It was made public by his successor after Mr. Attlee's assumption of office.
Mr. Churchill's statement is as follows:
In the United States the erection of the immense plants was placed under the responsibility of Mr. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, and the American army administration whose wonderful work and marvellous secrecy cannot be sufficiently admired. The main practical effort and virtually the whole ot its prodigious cost now fell upon the United States authorities who were assisted by a number ot British scientists.
The relationship of the British and the American contributions was regulated by discussion between me and President Roosevelt, and a combined policy committee was set up. The Canadian government whoso contribution was most valuable provided both indispensable raw material for the project as a whole, and also necessary facilities for the work of one section of the project which has been carried out in Canada by the three governments in partnership.
Elsewhere in his statement Mr. Churchill said:
By God's mercy, British and American science outpaced all German efforts. These were on a considerable scale but far behind. The possession of these powers by the Germans, at any time, might have altered the result of the war.
It is worthy of notice that the determination to embark on large-scale undertakings for production of atomic bombs was agreed upon while some details of the project were still in the laboratory stage. The outcome was a most impressive demonstration of the
Atomic Energy Declaration

collaboration of scientific skill and technical capacity conducted under conditions of the highest secrecy.
This aspect of the production of the atomic bomb was referred to by Mr. Churchill in the following words:
The whole burden of execution including the setting up of the plants and many technical processes connected therewith in the practical sphere constitutes one of the greatest triumphs of American-or indeed human-genius of which there is record. Moreover, the decision to make these enormous expenditures upon a project which however hopefully established by American and British research remained nevertheless an awful uncertainty stands to the everlasting honour of President Roosevelt and his advisers.
What was aimed at in the combined efforts of the scientists was the development of methods for the release of atomic energy, either to produce an explosion, or as a source of power. The immediate purpose of the construction of large-scale production plants, and the wonk of the combined policy committee, was the use of atomic energy for military purposes.
It is now known that the release1 of atomic energy can be effected so rapidly that a few pounds of "active material" will produce an explosion equivalent to that of the setting off of several thousands of tons of TNT. On the other hand, -the energy released can, it is believed, be so controlled as to produce a steady flow of heat obtainable at a temperature high enough to operate steam driven electrical generating plants. One ton of "active material" used in this way would generate as much power is about three million tons of coal.
In a passage which will carry its appeal to every human heart, Mr. Churchill has vividly expressed the sentiments -to which these amazing facts give rise:
"This revelation of the secrets of nature long mercifully -withheld from man should," he said, "arouse the most solemn reflections in the mind and conscience of every being capable of comprehension. We must indeed pray that these awful agencies< will be made to conduce to peace among the nations and that, instead of wreaking measureless havoc upon the entire globe, they may become a perennial fountain of world prosperity."
This is the problem presented by the discovery of the release of atomic energy. Here is the challenge to our day and generation.
As to sharing information; up to a certain point the processes for releasing atomic energy are the same whether the purpose is an industrial, commercial or humanitarian use, or whether it is that of mass destruction. Up to this point of departure the processes are already quite widely known. The scientific knowledge upon which these processes are based has been shared by a number of nations. 
Beyond this point of common development, the construction of atomic bombs consists of a series of highly technical manufacturing processes which are still very secret. Knowledge of these technical manufacturing processes is popularly referred to as the "knowhow". It is this "know-how" which is possessed in whole or in part by Britain, the United States, and Canada, and which has not been made known to other nations. The reason for not imparting to other nations, without certain guarantees and controls, the "knowhow" in the production of atomic bombs, is because of the potentialities of vast destruction involved.
It should not be supposed that the control of the raw materials presently enjoyed by Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States will, for any length of time, prevent developments in other countries. Neither should it be imagined that the processes in manufacturing atomic bombs-now secret-will prevent, indefinitely, similar developments in other countries. Even with international measures of supervision -and control, it will be but a matter of time before all processes are known to practically all nations. Hence the need for immediate action to seek every available means to end all possibility of war itself.
I come now to the declaration on atomic energy signed at Washington, on November 15th last.
As hon. members are aware, I visited President Truman at the White House on September 30th, the day before I sailed from New York for England. During this visit, matters related to the atomic bomb were referred to in conversation between the President and myself. Mr. Truman invited me to visit him again on my return from abroad. He also told me that he was looking forward to a visit from Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Upon arrival in London, I learned from Mr. Attlee that, toward the end of September last, he had made known to the President his view on the vital importance to the world of the discovery of atomic energy. He had expressed the opinion that the application of atomic energy to warfare made it essential that those in responsible positions in the countries under whose auspices the development had taken place, should consider the problems to which it had given rise. In conveying to the President the tentative conclusions at which the British government had arrived, Mr. Attlee had suggested that personal discussion might follow.

Atomic Energy Declaration
On October 3, in a message to Congress, President Truman said:
T therefore propose to initiate discussions, first with our associates in this discovery, Great Britain and Canada, and then with other nations in an effort to effect agreement on the conditions under which cooperation might replace rivalry in the field of atomic power.
While I was in London, communications were received from President Truman inviting Mr. Attlee and myself to come to Washington at as early a date as could be arranged to discuss with him the problems related to atomic energy.
In his Navy day speech on United States foreign policy, on October 27, President Truman, referring to his message to Congress, added that discussion of the atomic bomb with Great Britain and Canada, and later with other nations, could not wait upon the formal organization of the united nations.
Mr. Attlee and I arrived in Washington on the morning of Saturday, November 10th. Mr. Attlee had left London by plane on the afternoon of the previous day. I had left London on Saturday of the previous week to cross by ship. We arrived in Washington at the same hour. During our stay in Washington, every courtesy was extended to Mr. Attlee and myself by the President and the Secretary of State, Mr. Byrnes. From the hour of our arrival to the day of the signing of the declaration, meetings and conversations were held continuously.
In our consideration of the problems discussed, the President and Mr. Byrnes had the assistance of Dr. Vannevar Bush, director of the office of scientific research and development, and scientific adviser to the President's committee on atomic energy. Prime Minister Attlee was accompanied by Sir John Anderson, chairman of the advisory committee in the United Kingdom on atomic energy. Sir John Anderson is perhaps the best informed of anyone in the United' Kingdom on the whole subject, and on the circumstances attending the work with the Americans and ourselves in the researches on atomic energy. Mr. Attlee was also assisted by Lord Halifax, the British ambassador. I was joined in Washington by Mr. Howe, the Canadian member of the combined policy committee, and Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, president of our national research council. I was also assisted while in Washington, by the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. L. B. Pearson; by Mr. Norman Robertson, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, who had accompanied me to England, and by Mr. Hume Wrong, Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, who joined Mr. Robertson and myself on our arrival in Washington.
I should like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance given me by all these gentlemen and by members of our embassy staff in Washington.
In asking hon. members to support the motion which is now before the house, approving the Washington declaration on atomic energy, I feel I cannot do better than to set forth essential features of the declaration itself and, in so doing, indicate governing considerations which were constantly in the minds of all who participated in the discussions.
There was recognition at the outset that the vast significance of the discovery of the release of atomic energy was not yet fully comprehended; that very few realized the far-reaching effect of the discovery upon the future of the world-. It was agreed that the discovery had1 placed at the disposal of mankind means of destruction hitherto unknown, and against which there could be no adequate military defence, and in the employment of which no single nation could, in fact, have a monopoly. In a word, it was agreed that civilization could not survive an atomic war. It was also recognized that it was impossible to isolate the problem of the atomic bomb from the problem of the use of other weapons of destruction. The atomic bomb was seen as the latest word in destructiveness, but not necessarily the last.
The truth is that no system of safeguards that can be devised will of itself provide an effective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation bent on aggression. Nor can we overlook the probability of the development of other major weapons of mass destruction, or of new methods of warfare which may constitute an ever greater threat to civilization than the military use of atomic energy. At Washington, we were therefore called upon to consider not merely the elimination of the atomic bomb as a weapon of war, but also the kind of world order which is necessary in an atomic age, if civilization is to survive.
In our deliberations we were seeking to take the first step in an effort to rescue the world from a desperate race in weapons of mass destruction. We were prepared to concede that the progress our three countries had made in the development and use of atomic energy demanded that our countries take the initiative in an international effort to prevent the further use of atomic energy for destructive purposes. We felt an equal obligation on the part of our countries to promote the use of recent and future exchanges of scientific knowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful and humanitarian
Atomic Energy Declaration

ends. At the same time we sought to make very clear that the responsibility for devising means to ensure that the new discovery should be used for the benefit of mankind, instead of as a means of destruction, rested not on our nations alone, but on the whole civilized world.
In the agreed declaration we felt obliged to draw a distinction between the information essential for the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy.
Representing, as we did, the three countries which possess the knowledge essential to the use of atomic energy, we declared our willingness, as a first contribution, to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientic information, and with the interchange of scientists, and scientific literature for peaceful ends, with any nation that would fully reciprocate. We stated our belief that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and the free interchange of ideas were essential to the progress of knowledge. The basic scientific processes essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes have already been made available to the world. We declared that all further information of this character that might become available from time to time Should be similarly treated.
As I have already explained, the use of atomic energy for industrial, commercial and hur-manitarian purposes is dependent upon the same methods and processes as, up to a certain point, are required for the military exploitation of atomic energy. While we were prepared to share the information essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, we were not convinced that the spread of the specialized information regarding the practical application of atomic energy in the manufacture of bombs, before it was possible to devise reciprocal and enforceable safeguards acceptable to all nations, would contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. On the contrary, we thought it might have the opposite effect. However, we stated our readiness to share, on a reciprocal basis, with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy, just as soon as effective and enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes could be devised.
The attention so far directed to the strictly war aspects of atomic energy-that is, to the atomic bomb-should not be allowed to obscure the immense possibilities of development of atomic energy for the arts of peace. 
The atomic bomb is a weapon of destruction unsurpassed in human experience. But the energy locked up inside the atom, controlled and directed to useful and constructive ends, may make it possible to provide goods and services for people throughout the world on a scale which we cannot now envisage. It may be the means of raising the standard of living; of providing physical comfort against hazards of weather and extremes of heat and cold. It may revolutionize some present-day means of transport and communication, making all countries of the world near neighbours in a more immediate sense than has been made possible even by the development of air transport.
It must never be forgotten, however, that the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes cannot be developed without at the same time producing the very material which is used in a bomb.
In order to attain the most effective available means of entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes, and for promoting its widest use for industrial, commercial and humanitarian purposes, we gave it as our opinion in the Washington declaration that at the earliest practicable date a commission should be set up under the united nations organization, to prepare recommendations for submission to the organization. We expressed the view that the commission should be instructed to proceed with the utmost despatch; and that, in particular, it should make specific proposals (a) for extending, between all nations, the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; (b) for the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; (c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and (d) for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means, to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions. These tasks may well have to move forward by separate stages, building upon the confidence which the progressive exchange of information will provide.
Under the charter of the united nations the signatory powers have pledged themselves not to use force except in support of the purposes and principles of the charter. At Washington we expressed the view that by whole-hearted support of the united nations organization, and by consolidating and extending its authority, thereby creating conditions of mutual trust in which all peoples

Atomic Energy Declaration
will be free to devote themselves to the arts of peace, there would be found the most immediately available means of maintaining the rule of law among nations and of banishing the scourge of war from the earth. We declared it to be the firm resolve of our three countries to work without reservation to achieve these ends.
Nothing can be truer than that without unremitting cooperation and the united effort of nations there will be no enduring and effective protection against the atomic bomb. Nor without this cooperation and united effort can there be protection against the indiscriminate use of poison or against the latest refinements in gas warfare, or protection against bacteriological warfare, all of which are even more frightful methods of human destruction than the atomic bomb. To ensure civilization from destruction it is not enough to banish atomic or gas or bacteriological warfare; we must banish war itself.
It is intended that the proposals of the Washington declaration for the establishment of a commission to prepare recommendations on the means of dealing with the problems raised by the development of atomic energy should be submitted to the first general assembly of the united nations. It is expected that the general assembly will open its first session in London on January 10. On the exact procedure to be followed in bringing up this vital matter for consideration by the united nations organization, I am unable to say anything at present.
Before leaving Washington on Thursday last December 13, to take part in the meeting in Moscow of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, the Secretary of State of the United States announced that he wished to discuss with the Soviet government its views on how they would be prepared to cooperate in the establishment of the commission and on the procedure which should be followed. On these questions we are in constant consultation with the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, the other parties to the Washington declaration on atomic energy.
While I do not wish at the moment to attempt to look too far into the future with respect to proceedings of the united nations organization, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak of the past in reference to the erection of the united nations organization -itself. I recall very well while the war against Germany and Japan was still in progress, there were many who felt that President Roosevelt was pressing, with
undue haste, the establishment of a united nations organization. Echoes of this criticism were heard at San Francisco last spring at the time of the united nations conference on international organization. It was not until after the conference was over, and the charter of the united nations organization had been brought into existence, that the world learned of the discovery of the release of atomic energy and of its practical application against Japan. The use of the atomic bomb as a major weapon of military warfare presented, in an instant, to all nations wholly new problems of security. Against the use of the atomic bomb in war, nothing has thus far been suggested which could be regarded as a means of defence.
President Roosevelt's prophetic vision had once more come to the aid of humanity at a time of its greatest need. Had President Roosevelt waited until the war was over to call a united nations conference to bring the charter into being, we should not have had the united nations organization at hand to-day to assist in the solution of the problems which the atomic bomb has brought so conspicuously to the fore. Instead, the countries seeking a solution of its problems would have been more bewildered and baffled than they are. The world is but slowly recognizing what it owes to the late President.
If I have made myself clear as to problems of the atomic era with which we are now faced, it will be apparent that they are primarily political problems affecting the relations between men and1 governments. Fundamentally they are a part of the age old conflict between good and evil. As such their ultimate solution will be found only in the realm of philosophy and morals. One thing is certain: they admit of no mechanistic solution. By themselves, devices for the control of atomic energy are at best but temporary expedients. For this reason, I believe, it is an error to contemplate the control of the use of atomic energy in commodity and police terms, as if atomic energy were some new and dangerous drug. Technical scientifiec controls of production, processing and final disposition are indispensable, but they are obviously inadequate. It would, I believe, be criminal folly to allow ourselves to imagine that the peace and security of mankind can be attained by any scheme of commodity control.
As political problems affecting the relations of governments, the solution of the problems presented by atomic energy must be sought in the realm of world politics. The more deeply one ponders the problems with which our world is confronted in the light-"the
Atomic Energy Declaration

terrible light", aa Mr. Attlee said-of the implications of the development of atomic energy, the harder it is to see a solution in anything short of some surrender of national sovereignty. With a limited surrender of national sovereignty, there must be instituted some form of world government restricted, at least at the outset, to matters pertaining to the prevention of war, and the maintenance of international security.
The united nations organization is not a sufficient answer to the problems of peace and security which the world is now seeking. It is a first step, and an all-important step, in the direction of that cooperation between nations which is essential to the survival of civilization. It is not, however, the only, much less the final step. The united nations organization is an indispensable medium and Channel and forum through which the peoples of the world can work out new institutions and arrangements which their peace and security now require.
We do well to recall that the united nations charter had been signed before the world knew of the existence of the atomic bomb, much less anything about its ghastly military potentialities for mass destruction. The coming of the atomic bomb has opened our eyes to the appalling possibilities which will face the world if the united nations should fail tc achieve effective international cooperation. It is to be hoped that such a prospect may be sufficient to cause every country, in the interests of its own citizens, to recognize that "over all nations is humanity". It is devoutly to be hoped that the nations will not delay too long in welcoming, albeit in the form of some self-denying ordinance upon individual national sovereignties, a measure of world sovereignty sufficiently effective to maintain international security and to end all possibility of war.
If we are agreed on the ultimate necessity of some measure of world government to maintain world security, we should, by every means in our power, support and strengthen every agency of international cooperation anc understanding which can help to make the world community a reality. The peoples of all nations must address themselves to the task of helping to devise and shape institutions and relationships which will enable mankind to ensure, if not its salvation, at least its survival. We must work with all our might for a world order under the rule of law. This seems to be our only hope. Humanity is one. We must act in the belief that no nation and no individual liveth to himself alone, and that all are members one of another.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with very great interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister as he outlined Canada's part in achieving the release of atomic energy and the various steps leading up to the agreed declaration which is now before us, and his elaboration of the various clauses in the declaration.
At the outset I wish to compliment the Prime Minister, and all those associated with him, and particularly the scientists of Canada, on their respective parts in bringing about the results of that great discovery. With much of what the Prime Minister has said I am in entire agreement, and I should like to think that in that respect I speak for members in every section of the house.
The question of atomic energy, its production, its control and its use, everyone will agree, is of great importance at this time. The immediate question before this house is the declaration recently issued and signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Canada. The resolution before us makes a statement and asks a question. It declares that it is expedient at this time that we approve the statement that has been presented to us. This statement, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, is one which will have no effect in law at the moment, but is one which may be a guide to public opinion throughout wide areas of the world.
The Prime Minister has dealt with the history and the development of this recent gain in science. My remarks will deal more particularly with the political consequences of that development. The declaration before us contains nine clauses. I propose to analyse these very briefly and to make a brief comment on each as I proceed.
The first clause indicates the recognition of an important fact, perhaps the most important fact of the age in which we live, the fact that the modem developments in physical science are so far in advance of the modem developments in social science as to constitute a grave danger to the human race.
I believe it was Wells who, in one of his books, said that civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. If that were true twenty years ago, it is much more true to-day in the light of the new knowledge that science has given to the world. The question now is whether our growing control over the physical forces around us is to be used for the progress of mankind or for the destruction of mankind. That is the problem that has been dropped into the lap of this

Atomic Energy Declaration
generation, and that is what makes this particular time the most interesting and perhaps the most challenging in which any generation of man has ever lived.
The second paragraph sets out that the responsibility arising from this discovery rests upon this generation. It rests upon us to see that all these discoveries are used for the benefit of mankind and not for its destruction. That paragraph indicates one other fact, that the initiative rests with those nations who happen to have been the first to discover the truth of the atomic bomb. But it indicates also, that the responsibility for ultimate success in controlling this new discovery rests with all the nations of the world.
The third paragraph is a statement of fundamental truth. It is in these words: that the only complete protection for the civilized world against the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war.
I believe. Mr. Speaker, that with the statements contained in these three clauses of the declaration no one in this house will be in disagreement.
The fourth paragraph is a statement of proposed policy. In it we are asked to declare our willingness to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientific information, and^ the interchange of scientists and scientific literature for peaceful ends, with any nation that will fully reciprocate. Here we face, an immediate question:	Are the scientific data
and the technological knowledge so far developed to be entrusted by those who have them to those who do not have them?
This is a question to which an answer must be given reasonably soon. If the present attitude of exclusion prevails for an indefinite period, suspicions and distrust will be engendered in those who do not have this knowledge. At the same time there are few who would favour the distribution of the data and the technical processes indiscriminately, without taking every reasonable precaution to preserve world peace. It would seem reasonable that any nation which is to be permitted to have the knowledge we possess, and from it to develop atomic energy on a commercial scale, ought first to be prepared to submit its mines and laboratories to regular inspection. It is difficult to see how this secret can be shared without serious risk until every one of the great powers of the world is prepared to permit the free dissemination of news and the free admittance for observation of representatives of our great news services. I think it is not going too far to say that to our newspaper men and women we owe our survival in the last half dozen years of war. Had they not been able to find 47696-229
out what our enemies were planning for us and report, as they did, we would have been conquered before waking up to what wras going on in the world.
The fifth paragraph contains four statements; one a statement of belief, one a statement of fact, one a statement of intention, and one a statement of hope. The statement of belief is this:
We believe that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and free interchange of ideas are essential to the progress of knowledge.
I think everyone will agree with that statement of belief. The statement of fact is:
. . . the basic scientific information essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes has already been made available to the world.
That is, the "basic" scientific information is widely known. The statement of intention is this:
It is our intention that all further information of this character that may become available from time to time shall be similarly treated.
But that is it is to be made available under conditions mentioned later on. The statement of hope is this:
We trust that other nations will adopt the same policy, thereby creating an atmosphere of reciprocal confidence in which political agreement and cooperation will flourish.
All will approve I am sure, of the general attitude expressed in this paragraph. The human race has never yet. been denied the fruits of invention by conscious public policy, and denying them now would be unnecessarily holding back material progress. This new knowledge has potentialities for both good and ill. We cannot prevent its development. We .must therefore control its use. We must make ourselves capable of turning this and other secrets'of nature to constructive use.
Paragraph 6 contains a statement of opinion, and an offer to share the scientific knowledge. The opinion is that the spreading of specialized information before it is possible to devise effective safeguards would 'not contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. The second part of the paragraph is an offer, as I have said, to share scientific knowledge on a reciprocal basis. It states:
We are, however, ,prepared to share on a reciprocal basis with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purpose can be devised.
This brings us nearer to the nub of the problem we have to face. Is it possible or practical to develop the use of atomic energy

Atomic Energy Declaration

for peaceful purposes and prevent its use for war purposes? We. cannot now be certain that explosives produced for one purpose will not be used for the other. The problem, of policing the use of this process is a complicated one, much more complicated than any political problem ever undertaken in the past. Can society draw a line of demarcation-and see that the line is observed-between developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes and outlawing it for the purposes of war? That is the challenge. It is a challenge we must accept, and -as the lines suggest, we accept it by tying our faith to reciprocal agreements to banish its use in time of war.
The seventh paragraph is another statement of opinion. In effect if says, "We state it as our opinion that a commission should be set up to -prepare recommendations aimed at -the elimination of the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes, and to make possible its use for humanitarian purposes". If -any member of parliament has any criticism of this clause I suppose it would be in order for those subscribing to the agreement to ask what better solution could have been proposed. Its authors at -best see through the glass but darkly. They are only groping their way, with care and hesitation. I hope this clause does not reveal a disposition to try to escape from the responsibilities incumbent upon those who possess the secret. It is practically certain that the bomb will be used if another war breaks out. Unless we- are visionaries this must soon be realized. If there is to be war, any nation wanting to live -cannot afford to be without -a means of defence or retaliation if it is attacked. The secret is ours to-day. Others will have it to-morrow, and many will have more dangerous ones later on.
Paragraph 8 suggests a procedure. It suggests that the proposed commission should proceed by separate stages, and more specifically that it should undertake first a wide exchange of scientists and scientific information; and second, to develop a full knowledge concerning natural resources and raw materials. This clause adds a note of realism to which I think most of us will subscribe. We are dealing with a secret process, at least a process that is now secret. If the secret were no secret at all there would be little use in this elaboration of machinery. If it is still a vital secret in the hands of three nations a terrible responsibility rests upon these nations to devise the best safeguards possible for its use. There is no reason not to believe that some nations will relapse into a passive state, believing that entrusting the task to some international body will settle everything. The danger is 
that while the innocent will keep their promises, the aggressors will prepare to break their promises and war will be more likely than if no promises were made at all. A half-baked plan will mean that once more this generation will go to sleep on an inactive but still live volcano. That is what happened prior to the recent war.
Paragraph 9, as I interpret it, is an appeal to rationalism in a world made up of nation states. In t-hat paragraph the necessity of. three things is pointed out: the necessity of the rule of law among nations as well as among people within nations; the necessity of active and generous support to the united nations organization as the best means now known to humanity of achieving a world of peace; and the necessity of doing everything that humanity can devise to banish war. The paragraph concludes with this brief but strong resolve:
It is -our firm resolve to work without reservation to achieve these ends.
This clause sets before us a goal, but it does not guarantee that we shall attain it. It states the challenge that faces us. The united nations charter was founded on an agreement of the Big Three. That charter has been elaborated on the foundation of certain basic understandings. But the discovery of how to release atomic energy has shattered our faith in that foundation as it is now laid. The most vital problem, therefore, faces -us still. Can the world, organized as it is to-day or as it may be organized in the future, so conduct itself as to save itself from destruction? Are man's own- inventions to be the cause of his own destruction? Is the world to remain an age of unreason; or is man, with his new gadgets, to revert to times we thought were passed-times without the controls civilization could provide?
I am not one who feels that we must close this debate on a note of pessimism. I feel that many discussions outside this house have been characterized by too much alarm and despair and by too little hope and optimism. If man is to be destroyed by his own inventions, why weep about it beforehand? Rather, knowing the danger, let us set about with determination to avoid that end. Let us set out to find and to provide the most practical political solution that the collective mind of man is capable of making.
Some say: Let the problem be entrusted to the security council of the united- nations organization. That would mean entrusting it to eleven sovereign states, leaving some forty others out of consideration. Let us not forget that warfare has experienced a great trans-

Atomic Energy Declaration
formation in recent years. In the first great war, a country like Belgium could defend itself for weeks or months-this time, only for a matter of days. In future, days will not be allowed us to get ready-only hours, perhaps only minutes, possibly not even that. It is possible that non-aggressors will be less helpless than they have been in the recent past. Aggressors will at least know that if they make war there is every risk that an instrument is in being that may abolish their largest cities in a matter of seconds. That will surely be a restraining influence upon aggressors.
The choice for us seems to be between an association of powers in which it becomes the necessity of nearly all to prevent any one from dominating the scene-either that or a renunciation of some part of our sovereignty, some abridgement of our national sovereignty. If the latter is to be the solution, it ushers in the beginnings of a world state.
The nations of to-day were not built in a day. The national state as we know it has been a thousand years and more in the building. And a new international order will not be built in a day. But it can be started in a day-in fact, it has already been started; and while it is in the building, we must move with caution and with awareness. We are fortunate in being a member of the British commonwealth of nations and in being a neighbour of the United States. We all rejoice that the agreement before us to-day is one made between Britain, the United States and Canada, Thus we in Canada must all fed, as a member of this triumvirate, that while we are in good company we share a terrible responsibility.
What does it all add up to? If my sixty years tell me anything, they tell me that humanity will neither be satisfied nor safe till there is world security against aggressors. Any realist must know that this security will come in one or other of two ways-the way of war, followed by slavery to a dominating state, or the way of understanding, followed by a cooperative world; by force of arms that will result in a world state, in which one part will be dominant, or by force of reason in which nations will live together, each contributing its proper share of the price of discipline, and each bearing the fruits of the consequent peace and progress of mankind.
Our path as Canadians is clear. Collective security for humanity is possible only in. international collective agreement. We must pay the price of international collective agreement. That price is the sacrifice of some degree of national sovereignty. That price the nations will only grudgingly and slowly be willing to 47696-2291
pay; but that price we have already commenced to pay. A world state we now living may never see, but the various peace pacts of the past, the international labour organization, the united nations organization, the food and agriculture organization, the Bretton Woods agreement, the proposed international trade conference-all these are steps toward international security. All these give up something, even though it be little, of national sovereignty. What we are enduring to-day is the labour pains of better world understanding, the beginnings of a world of peace and of potential progress such as man has never before witnessed.
We have two things to do, both of which require conscious effort and a degree of international tolerance and understanding never before demonstrated in the world. We must determine to have international peace, and we must determine to be relieved of the shackles that have tied us to war and hunger and disease in the past. We must go forward in faith, conscious that, while we may not reach the goal in our day, we are going at least in the right direction and knowing that we are doing our part in bringing the world nearer to the time when peace and prosperity 'rather than war will be the inheritance of mankind.
'Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I regret that owing to a slight indisposition the leader of this group is not here this morning, and I regret it particularly because I know that he had prepared something on this subject. He has given a great deal of thought to it, and while I, or anyone else who may speak from this group, would express the same views, I am sure we cannot do it as well as he would have done it.
The question before us to-day has to do with approval of the agreement arrived at in Washington by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada, in regard to the control and use of atomic energy. I approve, and I believe this group approves, the agreement. It makes provision for passing on information to the other nations as quickly as an understanding can be arrived at as to the proper use of atomic energy.
I believe the proper organization to control this matter is that of the united nations. However, I am sure', and I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he says that what must be done is not only to prohibit the use of atomic energy in war, but rather to abolish war altogetlmr. So long as we have wars, those who make them will
Atomic Energy Declaration

use every means they can find to win them. The question which we should put our minds to, then, is not the prevention of the use of atomic energy for war purposes, but the prevention of war itself.
One thing that is disturbing at the present time in connection with atomic energy is the fact that research seems to be in the control of private organizations 'such as the Duponts in the United States, the Imperial Chemical Industries in the United Kingdom and Canadian Industries Limited in Canada. I believe it is quite improper to leave research of this kind in the hands of private organizations, particularly when those organizations have demonstrated in the past that they are not much concerned with the social uses to which the results of research may be put. These organizations have tremendous vested interests and large aggregations of capital which might easily be rendered obsolete by the development of a new power of this kind. I had hoped that one of the things that would be done would be to bring research in this matter under the full control of the united nations organization, following what has been done by the three nations which at present seem to have the knowledge of this power.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) says we have come to the stage in world affairs where cooperation is not only necessary but imperative. Indeed, in my humble opinion the atomic bomb has brought us to the stage where world government at the international level is not only a desirable thing, but a necessity. The choice before us is either world government or world destruction.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the problem of securing peace on a world scale seems presently to be the responsibility of the United States, Great Britain and Canada. In my consideration of the declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States, and in my study of the whole problem of the atomic bomb and of the world situation, I have come -to several conclusions which I wish to outline briefly to the house.	*
The first of these is this: If the United States and Canada and Great Britain were to remain in exclusive possession of the secret of the technical production of the atomic bomb for some long period of time, I am satisfied that for that period of time the world would have peace. Of course we must admit that eventually the other countries of the world.5 will discover the technique of manufacturing these terrible weapons, and at 
that time the supremacy of the Anglo-American people will disappear and the problem of securing peace for the world will no longer be their exclusive responsibility.
The second conclusion which I have reached from my studies is this: If all the governments of the world and the nations, large and small, were truly democratic, then I am convinced that an international agreement on the production and application of atomic energy and the organization of effective international control for the production of atomic energy in all countries of the world could be made effective. I am satisfied that that would then be possible, because democratic governments are amenable to the influence of public opinion and of parliaments like our own. It would be possible, because in democratic countries secret -arming would be out of the question, mainly because in countries like our own and in those having democratic governments money cannot be spent without the approval of parliament.
Let -us examine in a realistic way the situation in which one of the parties to an international agreement-particularly an international agreement concerning the atomic bomb-is a dictatorship. In a dictatorship you would find -no free press, you would find no opposition to the government, either in the so-called parliament -or throughout the country, such as we have in this country; you would find no regard for parliament. There are such totalitarian countries in this world, andi I may say that Russia is not the only one. However, I iam convinced that Russia is perhaps the most closed and most totalitarian country of all the major powers.
Under such circumstances I ask in all seriousness, of what value would be an-y international agreement on the atomic bomb? Of what value would be an international control committee? Who would -discover and bring to light, let' us say, secret armaments plants that might be established in a totalitarian country? Who would uncover preparations for a new war and -bring them -to light so that the world would know? Lastly, who would uncover the secret production of this outlawed atomi-c -bomb? Those are questions to which we must give serious thought. Those are questions to which answers are not easily found.
On the other hand, if Canada becomes a party to an international agreement on the atomic bomb and obligates herself not to produce the bomb or to use it in case of war, there are a number of important things which it seems to me we ought to be ready to look squarely in the face. Under such circumstances, in the first place we must ask: would

Atomic Energy Declaration
the united nations organization be able to ensure the complete fulfilment of Canada's pact?
In the first place we have a comparatively free press in Canada. This free press certainly would publish the facts and the whole facts of what was going? on. Sometimes we are irked at the actions of the press, but thank God in these days the press can say what it wishes to say. I uphold them in saying it, even though it may be criticism of me or of my actions or of those of the party that I represent.
We have here a free parliament. My first experience down here has assured me that this is a parliament in which men can and do speak their minds. The members of parliament will find out, or at any rate make a great effort at finding out, just what is going on. The government. will daily be confronted with resolutions to place on the table copies of all documents relating to any of the processes concerning the atomic bomb that might be going on. Somebody, because of that free parliament, will find out what is going on. In this house we have an opposition to the government, constantly watching to see that the government does not do anything of which*the opposition disapproves, and ready always to divulge to the world the things that the government is doing. I have known oppositions to take great glee in divulging such things. I cannot understand how a government in a democratic country could keep very long any secret such as that of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.
' We have also throughout the country political parties in opposition to the government, constantly on the watch to find out and divulge what the government is doing. If Canada -were signatory to an international pact on the atomic bomb I am satisfied that an international commission could come into our country freely and as often as it wished; and could investigate thoroughly over, as widespread a territory as it wished, every plant, every arsenal, every laboratory. This would be in compliance with our solemn pact, and it is what would happen in a country such as ours, and in any other democratic country that can truly be said to be democratic. The commission could talk freely with people anywhere in Canada, and the people would give information to the commission freely because we do preserve in Canada, as in other democratic countries, a good measure at least, of personal freedom. People need not be afraid to talk. There is certainly no such fear in Canada-I have noticed that. No person in our country would be afraid to discuss almost any matter with an international commission, because we have guarantees of personal freedom-and we have no secret police, no death penalties for political offences, or what is often referred to as military espionage.
One must conclude therefore that the united nations organization would come into Canada and other democratic countries and find them fulfilling to the letter the pact and pledges given with respect to the atomic bomb.
Now the question I must face and all of us must face is this. What about Russia or any other totalitarian power? Would it be possible for the united nations organization to secure fulfilment of Russia's pact on the atomic bomb, or that of any other totalitarian country? We must know that in such countries there is no guarantee of personal freedom, and therefore the people cannot talk freely. Every remnant of personal freedom has gone. There is no free press. The press is wholly controlled and muzzled by the government and cannot divulge what is going on. There is no free parliament; there is no opposition to the government either in the so-called parliament or throughout the whole land. They liquidate oppositions in such countries. They do not allow oppositions to work, and no commission for controlling the atomic bomb could possibly have free access to such a country. They would allow the commission to come in, perhaps, but the commission would be allowed to see only what the government wanted them to see. They would be accompanied and guarded. They would be allowed to go into this and that innocent-looking place, but they would have no freedom at all to look into the arsenals and laboratories or to visit the plants and factories. I would point out also that in Russia, as in some other countries, there are vast areas about which foreigners know little or nothing, which have been developing over many years but which are completely fenced around so far as getting information in or out is concerned. Do you suppose for one moment that an international control commission would be allowed to go into such an area? Would it not be possible for plants, any number of them, to be established in such an area for the manufacture of the atomic bomb? Why, of course. It is unthinkable to suppose that an international commission could possibly find out what was being done there, especially in the light of the fact that an international commission for control would be up against the secret police and the threat of death for any who give information and speak their minds freely. There are death penalties in Russia and in all totalitarian
Atomic Energy Declaration

countries for "military espionage", a term which is often loosely used to include most innocent observation and discussion. The prohibitions in such countries do not end with death. They often result in deportation of friends and families. These things are a constant threat to the people.
Under all these circumstances I am forced to the conclusion that a country like Russia simply cannot be controlled by an international organization. I am convinced that so long as there are dictatorships amongst the great powers, an effective international solution of the atomic bomb problem is utterly impossible. Now, if the secret technical methods of the manufacture of the atomic bomb are turned over to the united nations organization, it seems inevitable that the secret of this most dangerous weapon in the world's history will be conveyed to the dictatorships without attaining in return, any real and effective guarantees in return that the bomb will not be made and1 used in a war of aggression. Remember that only a dictatorship-and this I must impress upon hon. members with all the vehemence at my command-could possibly prepare secretly an atomic Pearl Harbour. It could not be done in democracy. Therefore it is absurd to talk of international control so long as Russia and some other totalitarian countries remain as they are.
I have reached another conclusion, of which I must speak briefly. I think it is absurd to talk of government at an international level so long 'as Russia remains as she is. I should like to hear those who advocate government at the international level tell us exactly what it means. Just what does it mean to Canada, and what does it mean to the other nations of the world? "Government at the international level" has been bandied around freely and loosely. Taking the situation in 'Canada right now, I wonder if anybody would advocate Canada becoming a party to an international government with representation on a basis of population? I wonder where would Canada's twelve million people stand in relation to the 130 million people in the United States? Suppose we should become party to an international government in which the United States might be the dominant nation, and come in on a basis of population, would Canada be prepared to become the northern share-cropper area for the United States? Has'anybody ever taken the pains to study what happened in the southern United States, and how they became the southern share-cropper area for the industrial north of the United States? I say that the people of Canada, if they knew the truth, would1 not

support for one moment any such thought; and if they would not accept such an attitude towards our friends of the United States, to whom would they subordinate themselves as a nation? Would it be Russia? I am not prepared to grant that, not for one moment. So far as I am concerned, I can see only one end to such a complex as has been developed on this "government on the international level", and that is the destruction of the British commonwealth of nations of which we form a part-the only real security, the only guarantee of international security we have under the present circumstances. The situation may look black, but situations have looked black at various times in the past.
Mr. Speaker, there is a man not far from me the hon. member for Yorkton, who speaks of my being "the worst bloody imperialist"-I do not know what he was going to say further, but I should just like to have him know that I am not going to lend a hand to selling my country down the river for any association with a doubtful international organization which rests upcto the balance of a strong totalitarian country.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: There was no reference to the hon. member. He just imagined that.


Mr. LOW:: Of course the hon. member for Yorkton is very smooth in getting out of situations of a kind where his tongue runs away from him. I have seen him in those situations before.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Anybody stirring up
hatred in the world the way the hon. member for Peace River does deserves what he gets.


Solon Earl Low: I am talking straight to the communists, Mr. Speaker like the one who just cut in. I say to you that God has come to the aid of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth of nations times without number. The only way we can ever explain some of the interesting, important and almost supernatural events which have happened in the past through our history is to recognize that God's hand was in it. There have been times when it looked as though all was lost; times when great men such as Wellington and Pitt have been led to exclaim that all was lost and that there was no hope for the empire or the commonwealth; that we were bound to be defeated and destroyed. Well, Mr. Speaker, men have commonly said such things; they have, said them in all ages.


Mr. REID:: But it will last a long while yet.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. it will last a long while
yet if we do our duty and do not sell ourselves and our birthright into slavery.

Atomic Energy Declaration
I say that the spirit of unity which was placed amongst us was put there for the purpose of rallying the various parts of the commonwealth to the aid of each other in times of stress. That spirit has rallied us all many times in the past, and it will do it again if we give it a chance. I should not like to see that spirit destroyed. It can easily be destroyed by such loose talk on "government at the international level" as we hear so often in this house.


Mr. ROSE:: It came first from England,
did it not?


Solon Earl Low: I am convinced that the Prime Minister has set his hand to a fairly wise declaration. I believe history will record that in its main clauses it was wise.
Now, having set its hand to this declaration, the government should, it seems to me, take under serious and earnest advisement the reform of its whole external policy somewhat along the lines which I shall now give and which, I may say, the Social Credit Association of Canada will endorse most heartily.
There have been numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, on which people in and out of this house have declared that the Social Credit people are narrow nationalists. That is not so;
I deny.it most vigorously. Just because we are not ready to accede to every request and every suggestion to sell our birthright, to yield our sovereignty completely and become subject to the domination of tremendous forces outside Canada, does not mean to say that we are in any way narrowly nationalistic.
In the first place, the government should be determined to preserve within Canada, the spirit and the practice of true political and economic democracy. I claim that that is the best guarantee of the intentions of any country not to become a dictator or to tolerate anything like a dictatorship. I repeat that we V should be careful to preserve all the elements of true democracy, with all that that means, and we shall then have done our best to assure the nations of our peaceful intentions.
The second thing I suggest is that we give every assurance of the fullest international cooperation on the part of Canada, as a sovereign nation, for the achievement of an era of peaceful prosperity throughout the world.
Third, we should be prepared to extend as a nation to all other nations the hand of good will and brotherhood and justice.
Fourth, we should be prepared to send economic aid to all needy nations, if necessary without even expecting repayment. Give them every opportunity to balance their payments
with us and I am satisfied we shall thereby convincingly demonstrate our peaceful intentions.
In the fifth place, I plead with the government not to yield to this diabolical doctrine of surrendering our sovereignty to any supranational government. We must be in a position in the next few years to act quickly and unfettered. The speedy action of Canada alone might be a means at some time in the future of saving the world.
Sixth, because it is not possible to devise a foreign policy which will be acceptable to the great majority of Canadians so long as they have no real knowledge and are torn between opposing opinions which are spread through the country, mainly through the propaganda of legions of foreign agents, the government must now provide the people with really accurate information. That is the only way the people can possibly make up their minds -on the basis of facts, conveyed by sound and accurate information about what is going on abroad.
Canada can never have a successful and sound external policy until the people of Canada are informed, and through their possession of accurate information are ready to instruct and to support their government.
Seventh, Canada should meticulously keep the peace, praying God that the Anglo-American people will be true to their great trust. At the same time they should be_ ready instantly, if necessary-and I emphasize this very particularly-to rain fire on those nations who disregard their solemn pledges and wantonly wage war.
I know that some hon. members, particularly in the group to my right, will declare that in saying this I am -a warmonger. That is not so. I am a lover of peace. But the only way to guarantee non-aggression in such a world as we now have is to be strong, and just, and ready to act on a moment's notice if necessary.
Last but not least, I say to the government that their foreign policy as well as their domestic policy should be one of absolute trust in God and keeping our powder dry.
I support the resolution.


George Hugh Castleden: And the brotherhood of man?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, sir.


Fred Rose: We have just heard from the leader of the Social Credit party what is practically a war declaration-in my opinion a very irresponsible way of talking in this atomic period. If he were concerned with his own province of Alberta-because we know against whom he made the war decla
Atomic Energy Declaration

ration-he would realize that parts of that province would be very much in the area of the war which he was advocating this morning.
i Mr. LOW: I was not advocating war. That is just the hon. member's own microbic interpretation.


Fred Rose: It is most regrettable that only a few months after the war we should have here a discussion of so serious a problem as the prevention of another war. People throughout the world, and that includes Canada, are disturbed by present events. I have here a letter from a woman in Ottawa, Mrs. Sheila Woodsworth, who writes to me as follows:
I am afraid of the atomic bomb. Alone I can do nothing -about it. I am writing to you in the hope that you will do all in your power to see that this great discovery is not left in the hands of a few countries but is controlled by a world organization. This seems to me the only hope for us and our children.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who wrote it?


Fred Rose: I gave the name-Mrs. Sheila Woodsworth, of Ottawa. I do not know her. As I said before, it is most disturbing that a few months after the war, people feel impelled to write such letters as this to members of ' parliament, asking them to do something so that this atomic bomb shall not be used among peoples. The Washington declaration does not reassure me any more than it reassures that person; I do not think it reassures any member of this house. The fact is that the declaration leaves in the hands of those who have it the power to use the atomic bomb at their discretion, and leaves the door open to an atomic armament race. It may sound very harsh, but it is a fact that it has left in the hands of the United States, Great Britain and Canada not only a dangerous weapon of war, but a dangerous weapon of diplomacy.
War simply does not come by itself; someone once said that war is a continuation of politics in a different way. Politics goes on before war, and politics to-day is becoming an atomic diplomacy. We see it going on right now in Washington, more perhaps than anywhere else. And recently we had the example when Ambassador Hurley practically demanded that the United States should use the advantage of the atomic bomb in her diplomatic dealings. Such voices are heard more and more in the United States. Pressure is being exerted on Washington for the United States government to use the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon [DOT] to club everybody.
I follow closely the United States press. I spoke in Boston a week ago Sunday, and there you get the feeling that a new diplomacy is 
being advocated in the United States. There is the intervention in China, and Washington practically says: "We will keep those marines there until the situation fits into our pattern." One hon. member spoke about Anglo-American democracy. I would say that this is far from a democratic action. We read daily about the wiping out of Indonesian villages, of people poorly armed fighting for their freedom against British forces, and again we hear about Anglo-American democracy. This is not the type of pattern we had hoped for in the post-war period. It is not the type of pattern that will produce lasting security.
The Prime Minister praised the great work of President Roosevelt, and we all had the greatest respect for the late president, but I would remind hon. members of something that he said in March 1945. He knew that collaboration cannot be Anglo-American but must be collaboration among those powers that made victory possible, the powers that can preserve the peace together. Speaking about the trouble at the time, he said:
It is fruitless to try to place the blame for the situation on one particular nation or another. It is the kind of development which is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems which may arise to endanger the peace of the world.
The other day President Truman seemingly forgot these words when he said: "No more conferences of the big three; we don't have to get together any more,"
There is no solution but in the continued unity of the big three. Only a few weeks ago when Cordell Hull, that great old statesman, accepted the Nobel prize, he said:
We must never forget that to achieve the great goal of lasting peace it is imperative that there be continued unity, friendly understanding, and common effort among the people and statesmen of -the major united nations who bore the principal burden in the war against the axis.
Unity and understanding among those who bore the burden in the war! But this declaration of Washington has been made by powers outside one great power that bore one of the greatest burdens, and this can only tend to create suspicion and bring about a situation that is not the best at the present time. Some people are always suggesting that the Russians are close-mouthed, that they do not say what they want to say, that they do not say what they mean, that they just keep everything t.o themselves, and so on. Hon. members who are interested have the same opportunities as I have for acquiring information. They can resort to the New York Times, as I do. If they will look at that newspaper in its issue of Wednesday, November 7, 1945, they will

Atomic Energy Declaration
find reported therein a speech made by foreign commissar Molotov in which he referred! to atomic 'diplomacy. What he says reflects the feeling of the Soviet people over the fact that they are being kept out, and are being given reason for suspicion. He said:
A word must be said about the discovery of atomic energy and about the atomic bomb, the colossal destructive force of which was displayed
in the war against Japan. Atomic energy nas not yet been tried, however, for averting aggression or safeguarding peace, but it is not possible at the present time for a technical secret of any great size to remain the exclusive possession of some one country or some narrow circle of countries. This being so, the discovery of atomic energy should not encourage either a propensity to exploit the discovery and the play of forces in international policy, or an attitude of complacency as regards the future of peace-loving nations.
Plainly and simply, Mr. Molotov says that there are some nations who believe that they have an advantage because they have the bomb, but that it cannot, be kept a secret. It shows that there is a good deal of suspicion in his mind. He ends his speech by saying, "We will' have atomic energy and many other things." I would say that as a result of the great contribution which the Russians made to victory, it should have been possible for the three nations to get together, making the atomic bomb the possession of all, because we would then know that it would not be used by any one nation.
, It has been disclosed that the Germans had some very dangerous type of poison gas but they did not use it because they knew that everyone had it. From the point of view of equilibrium in diplomatic and political relations, it would have been better if the atomic bomb had been placed in the hands of all rather than in the hands of the Anglo-American natibns. It is true there is a conference of foreign ministers where the matter is being discussed, but this is taking place after the Washington understanding and agreement. It could have taken place before, and it should have occurred before.
One United States newspaper man, Leland Stowe, referring to the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon, gives the following picture, writing in the Montreal Standard on November 24, 1945. He is a newspaperman of great repute who has travelled throughout the world and has seen the various countries at war. He knows of their sufferings. He says:
If the Soviets had the bomb and had followed Washington's precise course since August 6, how would the average American feel? I think the newspapers would be full of explosive condemnation of the "imperialistic power-seeking" Russians-and an awful lot of us would be olenty scared.
We would say: If the Russians don't intend to use the bomb, actually or for blackmail purposes, why didn't they invite President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee to a conference right away?
We would say: Why is Moscow treating the Americans and British as if they were second-class allies? Military men would be derelict m their duty if they didnT say: We've got to build a bomb of our own in the shortest possible time. Don't trust the Russians. The very fact that they only talk about sharing, after they ve had time to make many more bombs themselves shows they can't be trusted.
If I were a Russian I think I should feel exactly like that. But I am not worried about being a Russian. As one member of this house and as a Canadian interested in the peace of Canada and the world, I am afraid that the damage which has been done already will be hard to heal in the coming months, though I hope it may be healed. Scientists who have worked on the bomb have spoken publicly for the first time, and this is all to the good. Scientists who know exactly what is involved in this atomic energy, much better than at least many of us in the house can know, have advised that we hand over the secret to an international committee, not at some future date but right away. A number of scientists were engaged in this work. One very prominent man, Doctor J. R. Oppenheimer, who directed atomic bomb research at Los Alamos, New Mexico, said:
It has momentarily strengthened us-
[DOT] _
Meaning the United States.
-but not in the long run. Some people apparently have been reluctant to draw this to the attention of the world.
Then he recommends that it be placed in the hands of an international organization. Doctor Curtis, who was one of the leading scientists working on atomic energy at Oak Ricfge, Tennessee, - said that atomic energy should be turned over to an international organization to control all aspects of atomic power. There are many more. Only the other day Professor Sziland, appearing before the senate committee on atomic energy, said it would appear that we were producing bombs against the soviet union. One of the senators interjected, "No, no; we are friends." Professor Szilard replied, "Well, I assume we are producing them against the Soviet Union," and he was one of those who first thought of the \ possibility of the bomb. He went on to say: "Well, if we are, we are going to be at a disadvantage." He pointed out that it would take the United States twenty years to decentralize her industries, which would have to 'be done in the event of atomic war, but he said it would take Russia only

Atomu Energy Declaration

two years, and therefore the advantage of having the bomb now would be completely lost. One of the most ridiculous arguments against passing on the "know-how" to other countries was presented by Major General Leslie G. Groves, who was in charge of the whole project of producing the atomic bomb. He gave some reasons why it should not be placed in the hands of an international organization; and do you know what he said: He said it would erase national boundaries, end the sanctity of the home and destroy private commercial enterprise. That was the reason for his opposition to an international organization; that it would destroy the sanctity of the home and destroy private free enterprise. If these are the reasons then I would Say that those who oppose handing this over to an international organization are relying on pretty weak arguments. After all, the atomic bomb would definitely destroy the sanctity of the home; everyone will agree with that.
I was not going to speak on this at all, but before I conclude I must say a few words about one group in this house who have been carrying on a. most vicious agitation against a country which has been a loyal ally and which has been carrying out all the decisions reached at various conferences. People say you cannot trust the Soviet Union, that they are going to bolshevize the world. Well, right next door to Russia is Finland. We were told that was a country Russia was going to swallow. They had elections in that country. The communists did not come into power. A .majority of those elected were neither communists nor socialists. They said Russia would swallow Hungary. Well, Hungary has not been swallowed. They had elections there and the small holders' p'hrty came out with the largest group. Then people said, "Aha! now there has been a free election, because the communists did not come out in the majority." In France, of course, the communists came through the election as the largest party and the Red Army is not there. Again, something was said about Austria, but in Austria the Russians actually placed their cards on the table. They recognized the free government at the head of which was Renner, a socialist. They had elections there, and what happened? We all know the results. Then the Soviet Union said they would withdraw from Manchuria, and they are allowing Chinese troops to go into that country. I should like to see the other countries living up to their promises and responsibilities as the Soviet people have been living up to theirs. Let the other countries prove their good faith. Let them prove it in Indonesia,
IMr. Bose.]	- [
in French Indo-China, in China and everywhere else. They have not done so. The Social Credit group in this house, and particularly the leader of that group, assisted very ably by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, have been carrying on a vicious agitation here.


Mr. HANSELL:: What about me?


Fred Rose: I am sorry; I did not mean to overlook the hon. member for Macleod. They have been carrying on a most vicious agitation against the Soviet Union, actually speaking as though the Soviet people have been our enemies, carrying on the type of agitation which I have said before does not help bring about unity, does not help us when we try to build peace in the world, which will not solve anything but in my opinion will only help create more and more suspicion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Fred Rose: No, it is not going to be carried so quickly; this is one time I am going through with it. I will say that those who have been speaking against the Soviet Union are using the language of the Hitlerites. That is a sharp statement, isn't it? One day they will speak about the Soviet Union. The next day they will speak about bankers, international bankers, and they will mention any Jewish name they can think of in the banking world, forgetting the Mellons, the Chase National Bank, the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal-on the board of which there is not a single Jew-and all the rest of them. They are carrying on an agitation anti-soviet, anti-Jewish, anti-Socialist. Why, they even charged the Liberal party with becoming a socialist party. In eyery sense the sort of agitation they are conducting to-day resembles the agitation of the Hitlerites in the good old days. I have before me their attitude toward foreign, affairs. Here in this house, of course, they have to polish it up a bit, but down in the province of Quebec they believe they can sell the people anything they wish. Here is their attitude, for instance, toward San Francisco, from their own paper, Vers demairp, dated April 15, 1644:
Nous pouvons etre surs qu'a San-Franciseo, il y aura d'autres delegues que les representants officiels des nations invitees. Ils n'auront pas le droit de vote, mais ils seront la pour inspirer ceux qui auront le droit de vote. Les financiers y seront. Les Juifs y seront. Les socialistes y seront. Toute la bande infernale essayera de eanaliser ce concil eceeum^nique de la mati&re.
_ I should like to translate that, because it is too good to Ire missed by some hon. members [DOT]

Atomic Energy Declaration
We can be certain that at San Francisco there will be other delegates than those^ officially representing the various nations. They wil not have the right to vote but they will be there to inspire those who have the right to vote. The financiers will be there, the Jews will be there, the socialists will be there. All that infernal gang will be there to canalize this conference into their own channels.
And, speaking about the peace we want to have, in another edition of the same paper, under date of May 1, 1945, they say: (Translation).
The last peace, brought about by the Versailles treaty, was shaped by international Jews such as Schiff. Warburg and their associates; we all know what came out of it. Is the Christian but paganized world of 1945, about to yield to the same influences?
Then, speaking about the peace after the last war, they say that the last treaty, the treaty of Versailles, was fashioned1 by international Jews, Schiff, Warburg and Company, and that we know what has come out of it. Then they ask if the Christian world, Christian but paganized in 1945, is to pass through the same status.
Let me say that that was Hitler's argument.
I have one extract here which actually uses material I saw in a nazi paper, and which states that the Jews, the Jewish financiers, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had helped the Russians to carry out their revolution. Those are the stories, printed in that paper, which appeared in the nazi press. According to one of these papers the hon. member for Wetaskiwin '(Mr. Jaques) was to speak over the air about Shylock and Marx.
Listen to that language. That is language we have not yet forgotten, language that is not yet dead. Here they come to the House of Commons and, while they do not use the same language, that is what they mean. It is language which can only create trouble. If we proceed on the basis of it we can have no peace, no stability.
It is the good fortune, however, of the people of Canada that those people are limited to one province. We understand that we must have peace, and Canada as a neighbour of the Soviet Union and the United States and as a member of the British commonwealth holds great responsibility. We must do everything in our power to cement that degree of unity needed throughout the world, and especially among those who have carried most of the burden in the war. Otherwise we shall have chaos and disaster.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take much time this afternoon. J had not intended speaking at all until, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was speaking, I heard certain
47696-230i
mumblings in this section of the house. I 'did not have to strain my ears to hear the last speaker, the hon, member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), and I am not going to answer him.


Fred Rose: It is just a debt repaid.


Ernest George Hansell: However, he has attacked some of our supporters in the province of Quebec. All I wish to say is that whether they are our supporters or not, the people of Quebec have the happy faculty of speaking their minds. And they use the freedom Canada gives them as citizens. That is all.
There is no semblance of hatred whatsoever in the minds of hon. members of the Social Credit party; no hatred toward any people or any nation. We disagree with totalitarian dictatorship, and we have been outspoken in our disagreement. We wish no ill, and will fight against anything that will bring ill to any people or any nation anywhere.
May I compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the other signatories of the declaration now before us for consideration. I have read it with considerable care and, after reading it, it was my view that it is a magnanimous document, Great Britain, the United States and Canada, represented by the heads of those nations, in that document have offered to the world all *the benefits of atomic energy which they have discovered. I repeat that those benefits are offered to the entire world.
For a period of time, for economic reasons those countries could have retained this development of science. They could have brought to the western democracies the greatest standard of living yet dreamed of. But they have shown themselves willing to share this development with the world. The only place they have stopped in extending their gift is when it comes to destruction. And even in that respect, the declaration goes so far as to say that they will let the world have the benefit of their knowledge, when they are sure it is safe to do so.
Surely no nations could be more generous or more magnanimous to the rest of the world than have these three, when dealing with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I gather
from the debate that the house is all but unanimous in support of the resolution, and that at most there is but one member, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), who is opposed to it It will be, I know a source of great satisfaction to all members of parliament-members of all parties-that both in the Senate and in the House of Commons of
S65(i
Atomic Energy Declaration

Canada there has been unanimity in support of the resolution. That will help in all parts of the world.
May I convey to my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr, Bracken) my congratulations upon the splendid address he delivered this morning. Clearly, it was one to which much thought had been given, and which will be helpful I am sure to all who are interested in this all-important question.
There was one reference my hon. friend made-I believe it was to paragraph 7 in the declaration-where it seemed to me, if I heard his words aright, that either he had not in mind the true interpretation of the language of the motion, or that he was saying something that was not wholly what was in his mind. If I heard his words correctly, he said we were relying upon reciprocal agreements to see that the atomic bomb would not be used in future wars. Hansard will show whether I have understood my hon. friend correctly.
I noticed the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) took up the point and I thought quite rightly, said that the whole purpose of my remarks, in interpreting the declaration, had been to make clear that we cannot afford to rely upon any agreement anywhere; and that the only security against the use of the atomic bomb is the abolition of war itself. That was the point I wished to make very clear, namely, that so far as a major weapon of warfare of this kind is concerned, agreements amount to nothing at all, unless there can be some way in which apart from agreements an unscrupulous people may be prevented from violating an agreement into which they may enter or from using weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, the only safeguard for the preservation of civilization, now that the world is possessed of a weapon of war so devastating as the atomic bomb, is that matters be so worked outjn the course of time, and in the near time, that nations will realize that those who take up weapons of this kind to destroy other nations are going to destroy themselves as well. In this last war the use of the bomb by one-country was replied to by the use of the bomb by others, but it was not the atomic bomb. In an atomic age, that same kind of conflict, can only bring disaster to all mankind.
I am quite sure that my hon. friend is in agreement with myself on that particular point.


John Bracken: I was not conscious that I was in disagreement; I am trying to find the reference to which my hon. friend alludes but I have not been able to find it as yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may not be there, and I hope it is not, but if it is there I am quite sure my hon. friend did not mean in any way to disagree with what had been said by myself.
May I express also to the hon. member for Vancouver East my appreciation of the manner in which he spoke this morning, and, with one exception, of what he said. I shall allude to the exception in a moment. I should like to say that we all regret that the leader of the C,C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has been prevented from taking part in this debate, particularly for the reason which has prevented him from being here this. morning. Fortunately, he has already spoken elsewhere on this question, and a good deal of publicity has been given to what he has said. | think his remarks have made it clear that he would strongly support this resolution.
- The one remark, if I caught it aright, of my hon. friend the member for Vancouver East to which I wish to take exception was his statement that research into atomic energy for use in war had been in the hands of the DuPonts in the United States, Imperial Chemical Industries in Britain and Canadian Industries Limited in Canada. That statement is absolutely untrue, and I want to make the strongest possible denial I can make of the statement. This particular field of research w-as a matter of the most complete cooperation between the universities and government departments; it was not in the hands of these industrial concerns to which my hon. friend has referred. It is quite true that in the building of some of the: plants firms which were possessed of special skills and had been associated with one or other of the industries to which my hon. friend referred were employed to help on the work of construction, but so far as the research work is concerned that was a matter which was kept entirely under the control of Government departments of our three countries and the industries mentioned were not parties to the research work.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Have they access to/ the research and the use of it?
Mr. MAiGKENZIE KING: No, and I wish to make that very clear. Will my hon. friend give the house his reason for believing that they have had such access?
Mr. MaeINNIS: If I did not think that I had fairly good reason for saying that, I certainly would not have made the statement. I am very glad to accept the Prime Minister's statement that it is not true, although I do not think that is the best way of saying it.

Atomic Energy Declaration


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that a thing is either true or untrue. If it is not true, then there is only one way of stating the fact.


Angus MacInnis: If I had said that about my right hon. friend, I am sure he would have objected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would never have made the statement that my hon. friend made.


Angus MacInnis: I would not agree with the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: Would the Prime Minister add the name of Doctor Banting?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very happy to add Doctor Banting's name to the . list of scientists who will ever be remembered as among the great benefactors of mankind. In referring to Louis Pasteur, I was quoting from one who so far as the world's record is concerned stands, I believe pre-eminent as a scientist and benefactor of mankind.
I believe that by enabling us to make prevail among nations, the law of peace, work, and health, science will have given us the key to the solution of our world problems. The great scientists are known to be men of wide

Atomic Energy Declaration
vision and of large heart. I am sure the motive that actuates them is, in most cases, at least, that of service to their fellowmen. Again, in the words of Pasteur, I believe thfe final verdict upon their researches will be: "Science will have tried by obeying the laws of Humanity to extend the frontiers of Life."


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I caught the full significance of the Prime Minister's comments with respect to one of my observations. I am sure there is no difference of any consequence between us, but lest there should be I should like to refer to the matter. I think it was not paragraph 7 but paragraph 6 to which the Prime Minister must have been referring. The last sentence in paragraph 6 of the declaration reads as follows:
We iare, however, prepared to share, on a reciprocal basis with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical^ industrial application of atomic energy just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes can be devised.
My comment on that was as follows: I said 'that it was an offer to share scientific knowledge on a reciprocal basis, and I added: The problem of policing the use of this process is .a complicated one, much more complicated than any political problem ever undertaken in the past. Can society draw a line of demarcation and see that the line is observed -between developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes and outlawing it for the purposes of war? That is the challenge. It is a challenge we must accept, and as the lines suggest, we accept it by tying our faith to reciprocal agreements to banish its use in time of war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the phrase I meant-tying our faith to reciprocal agreements to banish its use in time of war.
I do not think we are tying our faith ito anything but the abolition of war itself. That is my point.


John Bracken: I think the Prime Minister will agree that I was dealing with the clauses1 as I came to them, and that what I said was not meant to be an all-inclusive statement, but rather an interpretation of the clause itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quite agree.


John Bracken: I might have made it more inclusive and said, banish its use in time of war and to banish war itself. But I went on to say that it "must be our main effort to banish war itself. Since the Prime Minister has referred to it, and in order that there may be no doubt as to the record, perhaps I might be permitted to repeat what I said with respect to war itself. I said:

What does it all add up to? If my sixty years tell me anything, they tell me that humanity will neither be satisfied nor safe till there is world security against aggressors. Any realist must know that this security will come in one or other of two ways-
And so forth; I need not repeat it all, but I ended by saying:
What we are enduring to-day is the labour pains of better world understanding, the beginnings of a world of peace and of potential progress such as man has never before witnessed.
We have two things to do, both of which require conscious effort and a degree of international toleranace and understanding never before demonstrated in the world. We must determine to_ have international peace and we must determine to be relieved of the shackles that have tied us to war and hunger and disease in the past. We must go forward in faith, conscious that, while we may not reach the goal in our day, we are going at least in the right direction, and knowing that we are doing our part in bringing the world nearer to the time when peace and prosperity rather than war will be the inheritance of mankind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask which on two previous occasions I addressed to the Prime Minister, with respect to the proposed international trade conference next summer in the United States. I understood that it was to be answered this morning. I asked whether an invitation had been received by Canada; and, should one be received, would it be accepted and would the Prime Minister consider sending a nonpartisan delegation to the conference. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries would bring the question to the attention of the Prime Minister so that I may have an answer later to-day.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO ASSIST MR. SPEAKER IN REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what progress has been made by the special committee, appointed on November 7, to recommend revision of the rules of the house. I think it is apparent to all of us that revisions of the rules are urgently needed, and as the committee has not brought in a report at this session, might we 'have an assurance from the Prime Minister that action will be

Supply-Fisheries
taken, as soon as parliament reassembles, to appoint another committee which will have ample opportunity to make a thorough study and a full report?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): It is .the intention to set up that committee as soon as possible after the next session is convened.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES 72. Departmental administration, $163,760.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I should like to say
a few words on this general discussion. When the department was before the committee previously I did not get up in time.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a problem which will soon arise on the international markets of the world in selling the produce of the sea. Such countries as Venezuela and Chile are going into the building of large cold storage plants, and though the fishing industry is in a healthy condition at the present time it is apt to face in the near future competition which it will be difficult to meet. If we are to keep the fishermen in their independent position they must have a reasonable price for their products. For instaifee, the halibut fishermen do not want to see the price of halibut go down to two cents a pound, as it did around 1931.
Another problem is that of the boats. During the war the fishing industry had difficulty in getting lumber, as many other industries did, to replace old and outworn equipment. Now the few boats which are being built at the boat yards are having _ a hard time getting good lumber.. It is a disgrace to see the type of lumber which is going fnto the holds to-day. It is a flat-grained fir. Prior to the war, in such things as decking you could get No. 1 edge grain, but they are not getting it to-day. In British Columbia we are exporting 65 per cent of our total cut, with only 33i per cent being exported from Ontario. Surely the minister could find some way of retaining some No. 1 lumber to put into the boats of the fishermen. There are subsidies of from 50 cents to S3 a cord on such things as cordwood. The minister should be able to get something of the sort for the fishermen on the coast.
A word as to the old halibut boats up in Prince Rupert. Most of them were built in the United States, and they will soon have to be replaced. These boats were built in the United States under subsidies given by the
United States government. We in Canada will have to follow the same practice in the future. We talk about free enterprise.; the halibut fleet out on the coast is the highest expression of free enterprise. The boats are individually owned. The men who work on these boats work on a share basis, and any new member of the crew who comes on them is not picked by the skipper so much as by the boys. In the interests of thie men I should like to see that independence continued.
The equipment which the fishermen have on the coast does not compare, I think, with that which comes up from the United States coast. Not many of our halibut men fish in the No. 3 area because they have not large enough boats. I should like to press on the minister the desirability of subsidizing or helping the fishermen to establish a No. 1 modem fleet.
We know that the fishing season on the Pacific coast in practically all lines is getting shorter. There should be some research in the matter of developing new fields for the fishermen to enter. Take, for example, the tuna fishing. It has been developed just over the past two or three years, and the fishermen have had to go out and test the equipment for themselves. Some boats, because they have had to keep the bait on the deck, have been turned upside down, and lives have been lost, because there has not been research as to the kind of equipment required in this branch of the fishing industry.	_
Investigation should also be made in the Jap current which lies thirty miles off the northern tip of the Queen Charlotte islands. It is reported that large schools of salmon have been seen, but it may be tuna. The tuna fishing season is very short, and this would fit in nicely with the halibut fishing industry.
Consideration should also be given to helping out the fishermen by modernizing their equipment. In the United States one firm is going into the manufacture of radar equipment for fishing boats. In "Time" magazine it is stated that no up-to-date fishing boat should be without radar. Is Canada going to be one beat behind the United States at all times? We developed radar; now let us see that tine fishing fleet get it, because it will be a marvellous help in finding fishing schools and also telling what type of bottom they have where they are fishing.


Mr. WINTERS:: Not with radar.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: A word about such
places as Langara island and Juskatla. I was caught short because I did not have the names, but I will give them to the minister so that he can bring pressure on the Minister of
Supply-Fisheries-

Public Works with regard to these points which the northern fishermen want built iuip. At Massett they need facilities as soon as they can possibly be brought ih. Officials of the Department of Fisheries are well aware of the needs of the fishing fleet in northern British Columbia. In Prince Rupert the fishermen through their cooperatives have built a large cooperative cold storage plant, but they have no proper facilities to get down to the plant, and they need a road right along the C.N.R. right of way. If this provision could be made for them it would be much easier for them to get down to the boats with their gear. At the present time they practically have to pack it on their backs if they want to get down to the boats on the roads built by the Department of Public Works.
I bring these points to the attention of the minister so that the fishing industry may be enabled to maintain its independence and grow and develop with the development of the country.


Robert Henry Winters: In rising to speak for a few minutes on fisheries I would say, as almost everyone else says upon rising in these last days of the session, that I regret taking the time of the committee under the circumstances. I offer by way of justification the fact that I represent Queens-Lunenburg, which is the best fishing constituency on the continent. In other constituencies possibly more fish may be caught, but I know of no other wherein a greater percentage of the population is engaged in fishing or wherein this single basic industry represents a greater proportion of the over-all economy.
This constituency is steeped in the tradition of fishing, involving wooden ships and iron men. There has been a tendency on the part of some hon. members to compare the merits of the west with those of the east. In my opinion competition is always a good stimulant, but it is -better when tempered by cooperation. Progress on the east coast will mean betterment on the west coast, and vice versa. On this basis we in the east are pleased with any developments our western friends can achieve, so long as we have adequate opportunities to do a little developing on our own part.
The fishermen on the west coast have been well championed by the hon. member for New Westminster and others. We do not deny that they catch fish of many varieties, and in large quantities. We cannot agree, however, with the hon. member for New Westminster, when he says that British Columbia fisheries are neglected in favour of the maritime9.
fMr. Archibald.]
To refer again to our good friend the hon. member for New Westminster, he was kind enough to send me a copy of a report entitled International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission Annual Report', 1944. This report sets out in a clear and interesting way the work put into the development of the Fraser river, and the expenditure of money involved in the effort. It is undoubtedly all to the good, and illustrates what could be done, on a much smaller scale of course, to improve such rivers as the Medway in Queens county and La Have in Lunenburg county. Both these rivers are essential to the economic welfare of the communities along their courses, and their development is urgently needed. People who live along these rivers, and read of the development of British Columbia rivers, find it hard to agree that the Department of Fisheries discriminates against British Columbia m favour of the, maritimes. *
As I have said previously, the department is well aware of the importance of developing these Nova Scotia rivers, but when I press the issue, I am toldi by the department that work cannot be proceeded with because the engineers who will eventually be concerned, are occupied in British Columbia.
In Queens-iLunenburg we have been engaged in fishing for a long time. It is of more than secondary importance to us. I can, join with my colleague, the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare, in asserting that, in our adjoining constituencies, fishing is the very core of our economic life. To us it is not difficult to justify the appointment of a minister from the maritimes, and right now we maritimers think we have a pretty good one. His department may be the *Cinderella of the government, but it is growing in stature.
It is pretty difficult to sell to maritimers the idea that other departments are more important and require more personnel. I would imagine it is equally difficult to sell the idea to fishermen from British Columbia. What the fishermen' want is a fisheries department strong enough and sufficiently well staffed with experts of all kinds, such as researchers, inspectors, guardians and so forth, to provide fishermen with adequate assistance to guarantee them a just share of Canada's wealth.
I do not know of any class of people who work harder for what they get in return.
The fishermen in the maritimes are grateful to the government for floor prices under fish. Although this has been a temporary measure, we hope that the government will continue to extend these benefits, which have prov.ed to be such an advantage to so many people.

Supply-Fisheries
We have just come through a period of fair prosperity for fishermen, because their entire output could readily be absorbed, at good prices, to feed warring nations. These nations are now at peace, and are bending every effort to restore their own economies. We shall have to look elsewhere for markets and perhaps be prepared to accept lower prices. There is much to be done in developing markets both in Canada and externally. When one realizes that the average consumption of fish per capita per year in Canada is only about twelve pounds, and that during the same period the average meat consumption is 157 pounds, we can see why the fishermen think there is room for improvement.
Externally our big markets used to be the United States and West Indies, and these are still good potential markets if we are given an adequate chance to develop them'. The Canada-West Indies treaty operated to the disadvantage of maritime fishermen. We lost good customers because of preferential trade barriers and discriminatory freight rates on Canadian steamship lines which considered it expedient to carry other commodities, and even fish from other countries, at rates considerably less than those charged for our own Canadian fish. These conditions are clearly presented in a report prepared for the Department of Fisheries in 1938 by two well known and-authoritative merchants and experts, Messrs O. F. M'acKenzie and F. Homer Zwicker. The report is entitled, "Markets for Dried and Pickled Fish."
Another report I would commend to hon. members is entitled "Report of the Royal Commission Investigating' the Fisheries of the Maritime Provinces and the Magdalen Islands" presented in 1928. After reading this latter report I gained the impression that the government has given it close study, since many of the recommendations have been implemented already. I cannot urge too strongly, however, that the- MaeKenzie-Zwicker report be given careful study and that it be acted upon. Maritime fishermen are convinced that the southern markets can be. regained by negotiating favourable treaties, but they insist that this must be done without delay. This .applies to frozen, fresh and salted fish.
It is most important that the department's programme of development and research be pushed with vigour. There is much to be done. We must find out how to get fish to markets in the best possible condition. This means quality control, scientific methods, more and better inspection., and a full programme of education. We have lost many sales because we were outdone in quality.
The research programme must, of course, embrace shellfish. Lobster and scallop fisheries must not be overlooked. There is still too much illegal fishing of lobsters. This applies particularly to the fishing of lobsters in closed seasons and taking of small lobsters both in closed and open seasons. Greater vigilance is necessary on the part of guardians, and it may well be that their number needs to be increased.
Scallop fishing needs some attention. This used to be a lucrative business, and scallops were taken in large quantities. The supply is fast diminishing. An investigation should be undertaken to locate new beds, and1 with a view to providing regulations as to the dates of the season, the length of the season and the permissible quantities to be taken.
I would add1 a few brief remarks in support of all that has been said by the hon. members for Saint John-Albert, New Westminster, Halifax and Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, in requesting close cooperation among the departments of fisheries, transport and public works. It is fundamental that fishermen must have the full advantages of breakwaters, wharves, adequate buoys, direction-finding devices and so forth, if they are to develop to the best advantage.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say again that there is much to be done. Fishermen are counting heavily on this government to help them take their rightful place in the Canadian economy. We have full confidence in the minister and his department, and we are hoping for the 'best.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister tell the committee what plans his department have in mind for the extension of the fishing industry, more particularly plans in connection with the rehabilitation of the men coming back from the forces? As the estimates of the different departments have come up for consideration I have formed the opinion that the departments are allowing themselves to slide back to the 1939 outlook. They seem to be getting back to normal, whereas there should be some recognition of the fact that we are living in a new era and that there must be expansion and a movement forward. I hope there are some 'forward-looking plans all ready to be put into effect by the Department of Fisheries.
With regard to the fisheries on the Pacific coast suggestions have been made by very responsible people, which I think would be backed up by the members from British Columbia, to the effect that a great deal could be done in the way of clearing streams so that salmon, could get up to spawn and the
Supply-Fisheries

young fish could get back to the sea, and that there should be a far more carefully organized patrolling and observation of conditions on the various fishing streams. It is suggested that once again fish hatcheries should be established in our province. I do not know how many hatcheries the dominion operates at the present time, but certainly most of them have been closed. Another suggestion is that courses should be established in connection with the rehabilitation of veterans, in which they could study such subjects as biology, zoology, stream control and a certain amount of forestry. Those are typical of the suggestions which have been made about the fishing industry. I see quite a large vote for this department in the supplementary estimates, but the particulars show that the bulk of the money is to be spent on the acquisition of boats, and is not for measures such as those I have suggested. Could the minister make a short statement with regard to the questions I have raised?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: We are still on the first item, and it is my intention to make a short statement after all those who wish to speak have done so. At that time I will deal with the matters the hon. gentleman has brought up. '


Thomas Reid: I have one suggestion to offer to the minister, and I am not going to repeat what I said when we were in committee recently. It is this. Our Canadian fishing fleet on the Pacific coast now is going farther afield. As the inshore fisheries are becoming depleted they are building larger vessels and going out into the open sea. They are also going down south and fishing off the coasts of California, Washington and Oregon. I realize that the minister is new to his position, but I should like him to take serious note of this suggestion, because I believe it would be of great benefit to our fishermen. Back in 1845 a treaty was drawn up between Great Britain and the United States concerning the Columbia river, which begins in the interior of British Columbia and flows to the sea through the state of Washington. In. that treaty it was laid down that British subjects would at all times have free access over the river to the sea.
That would be of benefit to us in this way. The Canadian fleet fishing off Washington and Oregon sometimes have to run for cover when a storm comes up. At the present time they have to pick up anchor and move back into Canadian waters, which takes a considerable length of time. It is my opinion, and the opinion of others, that by this treaty our fleet could enter the Columbia river, which would
[Hr. Green.]
save them a very great deal of time. To those who are not aware of conditions out there this may seem a trivial matter, but to those who know the district and to the fishermen themselves this would be worth thousands of dollars annually. If instead of having to run a hundred miles-or more in order to reach Canadian waters they could find safety in the Columbia river, which under the treaty I claim they have a right to do, it would be of great benefit to them. I do not expect the minister to give an answer now, because he has many matters to look into, but this is one thing I would ask him to consider carefully just as soon as the opportunity presents itself.	.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: Supply-Fisheries
of production, as the earner was obliged to play safe and usually worked less than a full day. To me this is proof that a regulation that will work in every case is something as yet undiscovered, and adjustments should be made in extraordinary circumstances such as these. 1 sincerely trust that the government will consider this carefully and also consider tax adjustments on low personal incomes, which I believe fall far short of present requirements and should be eliminated. There should be established a graduated scale for middle income brackets, which would remove more of the tax burden from the small wage earner.
I was in this house a very short time when the name "free trader" was given me by some of my colleagues. They were perfectly justified in doing so, as I still look back to the election of 1911 as the greatest disaster in the history of the maritime provinces. We have always been obliged to sell our products in a competitive market and forced to buy in a highly protected1 market. This has proved disastrous to the maritime provinces, particularly in the fishing industry. In order for this industry to prosper, a more friendly feeling must be created between the primary producers and the canners on both sides of this border, as the fishermen here have always been obliged to depend upon these canners for a market for their fish.
As I have pointed out, we in the maritime provinces are obliged to depend almost entirely on foreign countries for markets for our fish and fish products, and we are obliged to sell in competitive markets and buy in a highly protected market. Our' sardines in the fresh state have always entered the United States free of duty; that market absorbs about 75 per cent of the yearly catch. Lobsters, scallops, oysters, smelts and many other kinds of fish enjoy the same privilege. Ninety per cent of these fish are sold in the United States. If a prohibitive duty were imposed by the United States government, the fishing industry in the maritime provinces would be practically worthless.
Now, how does this country reciprocate? Does the United States fisherman have the same privilege of trying to sell fish in Canada? Absolutely not-except during a very short period. During the first great war-I believe it was the years 1917 and 1918

and for a few months during this last war, the United States sardine fishermen were absolutely barred from any market in Canada, The lobster fishermen in Maine got exactly the same treatment. Why this has been done I cannot explain, and I doubt if any depart-

ment in Ottawa could give the house a reasonable explanation. If they feel they are protecting the fishermen of the maritime provinces, they are absolutely wrong.
In the seventy-eight years since confederation we in the maritime provinces have earnestly endeavoured to find that market for fish in Canada and have failed. If the United States fishermen can do what we have failed to do, I feel they should be given every opportunity, and the least this government can do is to give them the same consideration we are given; even though it would be of little benefit to them, it would at least create a more friendly feeling on both sides of the border.
Another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the committee is the destruction caused by the storm of November 20 to both private and public property in the maritime provinces. In Charlotte county alone this damage is estimated at one million dollars. A great- proportion of this loss was private property. In some cases a life's savings were destroyed in a few hours. These fishermen should receive every consideration from the government, and everything possible should be done to assist them in getting established in business again.
The destruction of wharves and breakwaters is a very serious matter, particularly at this time of year when a large fleet of boats engaged in winter fishing depend on these breakwaters for harbour. The boats used to-day are much larger than were used even ten years ago. The value has increased at least 400 per cent, consequently, a much larger space is necessary to berth them. The number of boats engaged in this particular branch of the industry has also increased to such an extent that- breakwaters must be built larger and dredging done to accommodate a valuable fishing fleet.
Another matter I wish to discuss briefly is the wages that are paid fishery guardians. These men are employed temporarily by the fisheries department, usually for a period of a few months, and in many cases they are obliged to live away from home. Guardians are paid $2.50 per day, which is far too little. Returned veterans usually get these appointments. I well remember attending a fisheries conference at Shediac, New Brunswick, in 1941, when an official of this department made the statement that due to the fact these appointments were political appointments, they were getting the wrong type of men. Just what he expected for $2.50 a day I never could understand. This condition may exist in some parts of this country but being per-

Supply-Fisheries
sonally acquainted with the guardians in the county I represent, and working with them for quite some time myself, I feel I am in a position to Say they are reliable citizens, doing a fine job for starvation wages. I think the department should consider paying these guardians, who in most cases, as I have said, are returned soldiers, a living wage.
Much can be done to improve this industry by sincere cooperation between this department and the fishermen. If every official from the highest to the lowest could be convinced that he is paid not only to make and enforce regulations, and I might add that there are plenty, but also to study the problems confronting the fishermen from coast to coast, to associate with them in a friendly manner, imparting knowledge acquired by that study where it would be beneficial and appreciated, then everyone would 'be benefited. From experience I would say that too many officials see only one part of their obligation, that of enforcing regulations. That may be essential, but it does not require great knowledge of the fishing industry; or it may not prove to be a great credit to the official. I sincerely hope that in the future this department will seriously consider ' the importance of arming these officers with knowledge of the fishing industry, not with firearms to carry while on official duty as has been done in the past and is being done at the present time. An officer's efficiency cannot always be gauged1 by the number of infractions of regulations reported, or by the number of prosecutions secured, although this is the yardstick commonly used by this department..
In conclusion may I say that I am personally acquainted with practically every fisherman in the county I represent, having been associated with them during the time I was engaged in this industry myself, for over twenty years, and I feel I have some. knowledge of the difficulties they have to contend with. Long hours of exposure and hard work mean nothing to these men if they can make the living which they justly deserve. I have endeavoured to point out the situation regarding markets and the absolute necessity of cooperation between the fishermen and the fisheries departments of these two countries, since we are obliged to look to our neighbours for the markets we have always enjoyed. We are also dependent upon the cooperation of all departments of the government to see to it that those privileges are preserved which mean so much to the fishermen of Charlotte and the maritime provinces. The men who go down to the sea in ships have over a period
of years built up a friendly international spirit which might be copied with great benefit and credit by other parts of this dominion.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss certain phases of the fisheries industry.
I also represent a fishing constituency, that of Comox-Alberni. While perhaps I cannot say that it is the best fishing constituency in Canada, I can say to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenberg that it probably produces the most fish. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. member that we who represent fishing communities should work together and cooperate rather than endeavour to create rivalry between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. In that I am in complete agreement.
I notice that the agricultural members in the house have achieved great success in, shall I say, assaulting the treasury. They have made an excellent job of this. I notice that every time the agriculture estimates are up those hon. members appear to cooperate whole-heartedly with the Minister of Agriculture in an effort to obtain all the assistance they can for their farmers. I know that the budget for the Department of Fisheries of some $4^00,000 will not appear like a large sum to members representing agricultural districts. I noticed that one hon. member from Saskatchewan made an appeal for his white-fish. I am glad to see him taking care of the fishermen of his constituency, but I am just wondering, in view of the technique displayed by these agricultural members, if we will not find our appropriation going to the province of Saskatchewan. I am a little bit worried about their skill in that regard.
The hon. member for New Westminster has suggested that the British Columbia members were not pressing their fisheries as much as they should. That may be true. We British Columbians are modest people. We never say much about our climate or our peaches or anything like that. We have always found that if you have a real good product or a real good industry it will be something like mother's pies-they will not need too much praise.
I am, sorry there has been so much delay in bringing down these estimates. It was unfortunate that so much time was wasted on the speech from the throne in discussing generalities. I hope, that next year we will be able to get down to these matters earlier in the session. We are fortunate in having so many British Columbia1 members still present in the house. They must have been lucky with their train reservations.
Supply-Fisheries

The estimates we are discussing are practically all dead and gone now. I notice the supplementary estimates are quite, substantial and indicate some expansion, for which I am very glad. I hope next year the minister will bring in even larger estimates, and I can assure him that he will have the support of all maritime members. The Department of Fisheries would be well advised to cooperate closely with the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with marketing. This has been mentioned already by some hon. members. I should like to see our reentry into the great oriental market in connection with Pacific salted herring and salted salmon.
Speaking of market extension, I think a good job has been done in British Columbia by the wartime prices and trade board in extending the market for Atlantic coast products. Because of our higher standards of living out there, we must pay higher wages and therefore it costs us more to pack our products. One item I might mention is clams. I happen to be a connoisseur of clams because I was brought up near a clam beach. We always figured that the table was set twice a day when the tide went out. Without wanting to disparage the wonderful shellfish that they have on the Atlantic coast, I must say that they just do not come up to the product of the Pacific coast. We have been pretty well forced to use the product from the Atlantic coast, because the ceiling prices put on by the wartime prices and trade board made it impossible to put our superior product on the market.
I certainly would not have supported bill 15 if I had thought that the wartime prices controls were to continue into that sphere. What they have done is to send our products in the raw state across to the United States, and there are at least one thousand jobs less in British Columbia because of that. I sincerely trust that by next year we shall have got away from that condition. The wartime prices and trade board has done a wonderful job, but one unfortunate thing they have done is to lump a quality pack with a pack of lesser quality on the same price basis. I do not think that should be done, in view of the fact that the department is carrying on a very worthy work in emphasizing the quality of our fish. If we are putting out a high class product, we should be allowed some extra price in order to take care of the. extra expenses.
The vote for fisheries research this year is $541,000. To some hon. members this may not look like a large amount, but it is a lot of money for fisheries research. I sincerely

hope that we shall get value for that money. I wish to congratulate the minister and his department upon the excellent research experimental station at Vancouver. They have made a most valuable contribution to the industry out there. The advice they have given to the canning industry has been most valuable, and they have developed some new products which should be very helpful in creating a market in Canada. Canadians are the lowest per capita eaters of fish in- the world whereas with the high quality of our products we should have a very large domestic market. Our scientists and research stations have a tremendous job on their hands and if we give them proper direction and tell them what we really need in the fishing industry they can supply us with the information required.
In' the brief that was presented to the former minister of fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), early this year, it was suggested that the question should be looked into of reestablishing salmon hatcheries in British Columbia.
I know of one area that used to1 produce one hundred thousand sockeye salmon in one year. Despite the fact that there has been no change' made in the stream, no obstructions put in and no logging' done nearby, for no apparent reason that run has disappeared so that in one year alone only one thousand salmon were taken out. The value of the fish in that run alone, as it formerly was, would almost equal this appropriation for research.
There is another question which I should like the research board to look into very carefully and do it promptly. There has been a great deal of criticism regarding otter and beam trawling. A large number of fishermen feel that in scraping up the bottom of the ocean bed the spawning grounds for the fish are being ruined. I have seen hundreds of tons of small immature fish brought on to the deck of trawlers and shovelled off again into the water, probably causing pollution. That is the kind of thing our scientists can look info. Unfortunately our fishery regulations in Canada seem to have been made on the basis of the number of squawkers. No class, however numerically large it may be, should be able to get the regulations so framed as to do an injustice to our fisheries.
I think that rather than yield to pressure from groups we should call in our scientists and experimental stations with a view to passing proper regulations.
I am very glad that the minister is taking into consideration implementing some of the suggestions that were submitted in the Bertrand brief earlier this year. I see by a notice that I have received that a waterways
i

Supply-Fisheries
engineer is being sought to clear stream obstructions. I would point out to the minister that British Columbia definitely now has an unemployment problem, and I sincerely hope that his programme of expansion of our fishery service will result in the employment of a large number of war veterans, who I understand are being trained in this work.
I hope that that programme will be implemented as soon as possible.


Percy Chapman Black: This is one of the most important departments of government so far as the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces are concerned. Fish is one of our great natural resources and deserves more attention than it has had in previous years. The Duncan commission recommended that fisheries be set up as a separate department, with a special minister placed in charge. I was a member of the provincial government that made this representation to the Duncan commission. We have had some capable ministers in charge of the Department of Fisheries who have made considerable progress. Unfortunately these ministers, I think without exception, have not been practical fishermen, but distinguished members of the legal profession. Many people interested in the fishing industry would have preferred that someone with practical experience and knowledge of the fishing industry be placed in charge of this department. I believe that the present minister has done fairly well in the time that he has been there, considering that he has had very little, if any, practical experience. He has been supported lay capable officials in his department-I refer especially to the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister.
The great problem in Nova Scotia has been markets and prices. Our fishermen in former years have had to work at starvation wages over long periods of time. In recent years prices have been more satisfactory, but the fishermen could never understand why there should be such a tremendous spread between the price they were able to get, as low as fifty cents a hundred pounds, and what the consumer had to pay. I hope that the legislation we put through at a previous session providing for floor prices will rectify this.
There is also the matter 'of the quality and the marketing of the fish. It has been recommended that a special aeroplane service be established in order to market the fish regularly and in the best possible condition. I do not know whether the minister is^ prepared to make a statement in that regard. I am referring particularly to fish caught in the outlying portions of Nova Scotia, fish caught
on the- coasts and marketed inland- at a considerable distance from where it is caught. The marketing of the fish in first-class condition depends upon better facilities for transport, and in this connection it is desirable that an aeroplane service be established.
I would ask the minister what is his attitude and that of his department with respect to the large merger recently made in Nova Scotia in the fishing industry. I have no reflections to make on those who are at the head of this big organization. If they are going to direct their attention to assisting the actual fishmermen in the marketing of their product, I believe there is no one more capable of doing that than those at the head of that great merger. On the other hand it is giving the fishermen of Nova Scotia a great deal of concern as to whether the merger has been set up with the approval and, under the control of the department and has for its object an improvement in the lot of the fishermen, and whether it will be able to *achieve that purpose and guarantee them a satisfactory price and a steady market.
There is a good deal more that I should like to say in connection with the work of this department, but I know the committee is anxious to make progress and I shall not delay it.
Mr. M'OORE: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place this afternoon on fishing. All the speakers have been brief and to the point and the discussion has been really worth while. I happen to come from Manitoba, where the fishing industry is of considerable -importance. The statement was made this afternoon that the agriculturists of this country get a great deal of benefit from the federal department of agriculture because of the activities of members of parliament on behalf of agriculture. That may be true, but we must look forward to a much greater expenditure still on agriculture if it is to continue to be the industry it is supposed to be. Saskatchewan, for instance, will require an expenditure of $200,000,000 for a major irrigation project. This is something of extreme importance. I do not think we are asking too much when we ask this. We must remember that prior to the outbreak of the present war over 400 million dollars was spent on Singapore, and the guns of the naval base could not foe turned around to fire inland. The enemy came up from behind and the garrison simply had to surrender.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. MOORE:: That fact may not foe greatly related to these estimates, but I think it may be in point as far as the question of recommendations is concerned. As to fishing, Manitoba has a considerable fishing industry which is gradually extending northward. I recommend that the department lay plans for the building in northern Manitoba of a number of fish filleting plants at places Where the fish have to be transported by air. If that were done it would foe quite possible to expand the industry considerably. I think we can take a leaf out of the book which Saskatchewan has written in connection with the fishing industry. The Saskatchewan government has done considerable to expand the industry in the northern areas of the province. I suggest also that we investigate the possibilities of cooperative marketing of fish. Already Nova Scotia has done a great deal in that line.
After looking through the estimates it appears to me that no large amount of money has been allocated to the inland fisheries. How much money, for example, is to be spent in these estimates on fishing in Manitoba?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I asked him what report he referred to in his remarks he told me it was not a document that had been put out by the fisheries department. It is really not within my competence to discuss the matter of controls, because it does not come within the. purview of the Department of Fisheries. There was, however, one remark of the member for Queens which I would comment upon. At page 2796 of Hansard I read:
It has been most annoying to the fishermen that the Department of Fisheries have not cooperated with the packers and the fishermen in an effort to educate them to put out .a better article for the market.
May I say that my information from the departmental officials is that a special effort has been devoted to this very problem. This cooperation took the form of courses given at the Halifax fishermen's experimental station for cannery managers and the preparation and distribution of pamphlets giving a simple description of improved technique and proper processing, and continued and repeated1 visits by experts of the department to the canneries to assist in various problems, placing at the disposal of the canners engineering and technical advice. Any fair-minded canner, especially the smaller ones, will attest to the truthfulness of that statement, and if the hon. member wishes further information, such as examples of the type of literature available, it will be furnished by my department. The department will be pleased to make such information available to him. One thing which the department has always emphasized and will continue to emphasize, in my tenure of office at any rate, is quality of product.
The member for Nanaimo made certain references to the rehabilitation of streams on Vancouver Island. I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. gentleman that this is being made the subject of special study by the fisheries research board, though the problem is a large one which cannot be tackled all at once. I can assure him that Vancouver island is included in the study. The hon. member also brought up the question of the utilization of seaweed. This is a matter that is receiving the continuous attention of the research workers.	[DOT]
With regard to whaling, my information is that whales have been threatened with extinction by the operation of competing countries, and there are conventions, to which Canada is a party, under which we have all agreed that, in order to conserve the industry, a definite limit must be placed upon the kill each year. The Canadian government has

taken steps to protect the interests of Canada in this regard so that we may be assured of our proper share.
The member for Saskatoon City referred to the fact that in 1944, according to the public accounts, this department spent only $13.08 in his province. In fairness it should be pointed out to the hon. member, 'and also to the member for Churchill, who spoke a few moments ago, that the prairie provinces are responsible for their own administration of fisheries. I would also direct attention to the fact that the dominion government has established a prairie provinces division and experimental station to assist in the development of the industry and marketing problems of the prairie provinces. This was accomplished by order in council P.C. 4812, to which the member for Saskatoon City referred.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where is the experimental station?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: In the city of Winnipeg. Other speakers have brought up some other subjects which I wish to assure them are all receiving careful consideration. There is no doubt that I have found most helpful the remarks made by the thirteen or fourteen hon. members who have spoken. I am perfectly frank about the situation. I have not been in charge of the department for much more than three months, but I am in a position to learn; at least I hope so; and it is definitely my intention to learn. I believe I can learn a great deal from many members of the house who have given us some valuable suggestions to-day.
There is one thing to which I think I should reply, and that is to the remarks made by the member for Cumberland, who asked some questions regarding the recent merger of certain companies in Nova Scotia. My reply is that as far as the Department of Fisheries was concerned this merger was accomplished without either its approval or disapproval. The merger was carried out according to the law of the land, and the department had nothing whatever to do with it.
I do not wish to delay the committee any longer; in other words I do not want to make any sort of provocative speech and thereby block my own estimates. The hon. member for Vancouver South did ask- something in regard to the future policy of the department.
It should be borne in mind that the estimates . before us to-day were prepared many months ago, while the war was still on; and that I myself, as I said before, have been in the department for a matter of only three months.
So of necessity my remarks concerning policy

Supply-Fisheries
will be brief. I hope when the next session of the house comes around I will feel in a better position to deal with this question. I would state to my hon. friend, however, that this government hopes to take all possible steps to ensure a favourable position for Canadian fish in the various export markets. Mention might also be made in this connection of the present plans of the Department of Trade' and Commerce to extend and improve its trade commissioner service abroad in the interests of Canadian fish exporters. Future trade largely depends upon the quality of our products. Food standards generally became increasingly higher in the pre-war years. The department's- emphasis is more and more on quality. The quality of the product must not only be of high calibre in comparison with fish of other countries but also in comparison with other foods.
The present transition period no doubt will bring greater responsibilities both upon the industry and upon the department. Here I might mention that the function of the department is intended always to be in the interests of the industry and these people dependent upon it. At times certain regulations may appear to be irksome and irritating, but from past experience it can be seen that while unpopular at their inception they have been amply justified as time went by.
No doubt the future will entail certain expansion and changes in the department. I cannot go into detail at this time, but we have hopes of producing adequate staff of high calibre and properly trained. In this connection I might mention that we shall be looking for recruits from among those of our young men who have been in the three armed services and who are now returning from overseas. These new recruits w'ill be given proper courses of instruction which it is hoped will make them educationalists as well as police officers.
The fisheries of this country occupy a minor place in dollar volume in comparison with other industries, but one must measure it by the number of people who are dependent upon it for their 'livelihood. Parliament and the press as a whole throughout Canada quite naturally pay a great deal more attention to agriculture, forestry and mining, because they loom more largely in the dollar bracket; but we are interested in the number of people whose lives depend upon the industry. I regard the fishing industry as one of the most hopeful industries in Canada because, as the hon. member for Queen's-Lunenburg has said, there is so much still to be done.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For many years I have risen in my place in this house and asked the Minister of Fisheries to see to it that we in Ontario should get our fish from the maritimes. I do not know how much the fishermen get for' each class of fish, but I never could quite understand the tremendous spread between what they received and what my people in the city of Toronto have to pay for fish. I believe that for cod, as an example, they get three or four cents a pound; but in Ontario when you want to buy a piece of cod you have to pay thirty or forty cents a pound for it. There must be some reason for that. The minister spoke about our export trade. I think it is time we did something about trade within our own country and brought the fish from the maritime provinces up to Ontario, where we have about three million people who would like to get fish. But we do not believe fish should cost as much as [DOT] roast beef, and that is about what it does at the present time. At other times of the year we cannot get the fish at all. .1 wonder if the minister would tell us something about this matter.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It is really a complex question the hon. gentleman has brought up at this stage of the proceedings, though of course I am not criticizing him because it is so late in the session. I believe it is a matter which will require a great deal of study. If other ministers, after giving the matter considerable attention, were unable to give the hon. member an answer, I am sure it will require a great deal of study for me to answer his question. However, I can assure my hon. friend I shall endeavour to give him an answer when we meet again next March.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
76.	Fish culture, $199,030.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us how many hatcheries there are in British Columbia operated by the dominion government at the present time, and how that compares with the number formerly operated?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There are no fish hatcheries operating in British Columbia under dominion control.


Howard Charles Green: How many were there
previously?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am told there were about twelve.
Mr. GRfiEN: Has the department any intention of reestablishing dominion hatcheries in that province?
Supply-Fisheries


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The problem is being reexamined, and wherever it is really indicated that it would be of benefit to the industry, every consideration will be given to the possibility of reopening the hatcheries.


Thomas Reid: I am glad the minister gave that answer, because for the benefit of the hon. member for Vancouver South I can say that the question of hatcheries is one of our great problems. In the past we had many tragedies in connection with hatcheries, and the matter is not altogether clear. There are two schools of thought; one does not believe in it and the other does. In the state of Washington, for instance, they have had a tragic _ decline in fisheries in the Columbia river, in spite of the hatcheries.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I should like to know the situation in Manitoba in" regard to hatcheries. Are there any there under dominion control?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There are no hatcheries at all under dominion control in Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77.	Oyster culture, $34,430.
Mr. McLURE:: I want to say to the minister that this work is well run as a subdepartment of the fisheries department. The late deputy minister, Doctor Found, inaugurated this culture, and started anew a great industry throughout Canada known as aqua farming. In our section of the country the work is being carried on with great success under Doctor Needier and Doctor Kerswill at the biological station at Ellerslie, and they are being highly complimented on their work by the fishermen engaged in this branch of the industry. What is the gross revenue the department is receiving from the industry of oyster fishing?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Was the question in regard to the gross revenue the department is receiving?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes, from the royalties on oyster leases, and so on; not from the industry.
' Mr. BRIDGES: I am told the amount is 16,073.28.	[DOT]


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to point out to the minister that along Northumberland strait it is generally known that only a fraction of the oysters are raised that this area is capable of producing. There is tremendous scope for a profitable development of this industry. It pleases me to note that there is a small increase in the appropriation, and I join with the hon. member for 
Queens in pointing out to the minister that there is a tremendous field for further development of this important natural resource.
The productivity per acre of these oyster areas is far above that of any agricultural crop. Looking back over the years it is clear that this branch of the fishing industry has been almost completely neglected. I am pleased therefore to see that the department is giving some additional attention to it.
Item agred to.
78.	Fisheries Research Board of Canada, $487,200.


Thomas Reid: I note there is a great increase in the appropriation for this year as compared with last. I know that the government cannot reduce taxation and at the same time enlarge expenditures in certain lines. May I make my position clear; I am not about to. criticize either research or scientists, but I must say I have found in nine years' experience with scientists who have been connected with the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission that unless one keeps a close eye on them, and directs and tells them what to do, he will be in difficulties. If one simply hands them a lot of money to play around with, then certainly they will play around with it. That is the experience I have had.
I think it is time the minister told this board, in the words of Chisholm, that Santa Claus is dead, because during the war they increased their expenditures, while the department in general lacked men and equipment.
The increase in this vote over last year's is of considerable importance. I realize they have done some wonderful work in Vancouver in connection with the refrigeration and preservation of fish. However I -would ask the minister to look into the situation at Nanaimo, and I would suggest that he do what has been done in connection with the salmon commission. He should have responsible to' him a group who will supervise what these experts and scientists are doing. No longer can we turn money over to them, or turn them loose and1 let them do what they like. I know of one scientist in the state of Washington who spent thirty-five years of his life making investigations in connection with a small insect which was harming the industry. When he retired he said; "Well, it was an interesting time in my life, anyway, but no conclusion was ever reached."
The same would apply to some of the scientific research now going on. There is probably no end to it. It is unfortunate that at this stage of the session we could not have a full-dress debate on the entire question. However

Supply-Fisheries
I have felt it wise to draw the attention of the minister to this increase in the vote, and I hope that when we come back next year he will be in a position to give a complete answer as to what has been accomplished in British Columbia.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I note that of this vote the sum of $237,127 is for temporary assistance. This seems a large figure under that heading. Of what does it consist?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: All the employees of the fisheries research board are not civil servants. They are temporarily employed by the board. The amount is large under that heading because the board has expanded to a considerable extent during war years.


George Hugh Castleden: How many are involved in this expenditure?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I shall get the information later. I do not have it before me at the present time.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am pleased to note an increase of about $119,000 in this vote. Will most of this be spent in extra research work?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S3. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses ineidential to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1942, $300,000.
Thomas Reid: We have had a treaty with the United States since 1911, and have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars under that treaty through the sale of fur skins. When the United States built a village in the Pribyloff islands I understand they built an office, or at least some housing accommodation to take care of a Canadian representative. During all those long years we have never sent, a representative to those islands to see what is being done. Surely when we are getting so much from the treaty we should take some interest in the matter, and send someone. I know the United States authorities are not well pleased about this apparent lack of interest.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This item deals with a revenue producer, and at practically no cost. Why is there an increase in the vote? What was our share of the seal skins under the treaty of 1911, or of 1942? Where is the dressing, dyeing and machining of the skins earned out? Where are they marketed, and have we marketed our 1945 take? I understand the
Americans have marketed their quantity, and I should like' to know the gross amount we received from this industry.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The increase in the vote is necessary to provide for a greater take of seals, and also for the payment of duties. The number of skins was 14,000, and the net revenue as to October, $253,260.37.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Where were they sold?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: They were all sold in
Canada.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I understand that the
total take-off was around 77,000, out of which we received twenty per cent. Formerly we received only fifteen per cent, but the new treaty of 1942 gave Canada twenty per cent and the United States eighty per cent.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: That is correct.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Where were the dressing and dyeing done?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Some in St. Louis, United States, and some in London, England.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What did you receive for the skins machined and dyed in the United States as compared with those machined and dyed in England?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I shall have to get the
average prices worked out for both places and supply them to the hon. member.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Perhaps I could give the
minister a bit of information he may not have. It may be to his interest to know that when the ceiling price was taken off in the United States prices reached what was almost a peak. If the bulk of our skins had been sold there we would have averaged, that is taking the extra large, large and culls together, $70 a skin. Their skins realized $110 for the large and extra large, $76 for the medium and $51 for the damaged.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I thank the hon. member
for the information.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think we should take into consideration where would be the best place to market these skins as well as the best place to have them machined, dyed and dressed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
84. To provide for payment of a bounty for the destruction of harbour seals, $15,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the bounty per
seal?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Five dollars.
Supply-Fisheries


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: To what provinces is this Allocated, and what has been paid) out to each province?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: My information is that it is divided, $7,500 to the east and $7,500 to the west; there is no distinction as between provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
. 85. To provide for the extension of educational work m cooperative production and selling among fishermen, $56,000.
Mr. BURTON:: What work is being carried on under this item, and who is carrying it on?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This covers extension work carried on on the east coast by St. Francis Xavier and Ste Anne de la Pocatiere universities and on the west coast by the university of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
463. Educational extension service-further amount required, $45,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I had not intended toi say anything on the subject of fisheries, because the people in my riding have litt/le or nothing to do with fishing except to buy fish or to catch them as a sport. However, I should like to ask a question about northern fisheries, and' I do so because no one so far has inquired about this matter. If the minister cannot give me an answer right away he can furnish me with this information at a future time. Does the department have anything to do with advancing the sale of the white whales which are caught in Hudson bay? I have seen them so thick that you could almost walk on them, and they must possess some properties for oil or food or something else. Does the department do anything in connection with walrus fishing in the Arctic ocean? There are large numbers of these animals to be caught. What is the department doing to keep up the quality of fish caught in Great Slave lake, Great Bear lake and lake Athabaska? These fish are excellent when they are of good quality. They seem to offer the possibilities of a worthwhile business, because many of them are being sent out at the present time by aeroplane.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: White whale fishing in Hudson bay and walrus fishing in the Arctic ocean are protected for the native population.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any export of what is caught by the native population?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am afraid I have no information on that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister is a new minister and I hope he will interest himself in the subject. It would be worth his while to make a trip up there, because I know he would be delighted to see the white whales around Churchill. What about the fish caught in Great Slave lake, Great Bear lake and lake Athabaska?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Two surveys were made in two different years. Considerable information was gathered, and the department is deciding just what should be done in the future. I am not in a position to say more than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $526,002.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to refer first to one or two of the minister's observations as recorded at pages 3625 and 3626 of Hansard. I am not sure that the minister has been correctly reported where he says, referring to the hon. member for Vancouver East:
As my hon. friend knows, the Department of Labour is a placement agency.
Is that correct?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that
because that is the opinion I have had of the department. I have always maintained that part of the duty of the Department of Labour was to find employment. Am I right in that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That being so, I am going to suggest to the minister that he and the Minister of Reconstruction collaborate and cooperate and discuss closely and often the problems of supplying labour. I wish to help the minister and the Minister of Reconstruction. It is absolutely necessary that the two departments collaborate and cooperate, because today the biggest job in this country is and will be for some time to come, in spite of what anyone else says, the problem of finding jobs.
On the next page the minister says:
When we realize that during the last four months we nave placed over 750,000 people in the employment stream-
I admit that that is a lot of placing, but I am sure that the minister will agree with me that a lot of that was temporary or seasonal employment. Of course a percentage of our people do not want more than temporary or seasonal employment, but the people I am thinking of are those who not only want a job but have aspirations and ambition to work

Supply-Labour
up in the jobs they have. That is the type of men and women with whom I have been associated most of my life, those employed in industry, and I am sure that the minister never at any time meant that during the last four months 750,000 people were placed in jobs in industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: I gave the figure of
750.000,	but 783,000 is the correct figure.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The figures for the last
normal year tabulated in the Canada Year Book, 1937, give the number of business establishments, small and large factories and all institutions that supply labour, as 18,000 odd. In that number of large and small businesses some would employ two or three thousand employees and some as low* as two or three employees. The total number employed in those 18,000 odd establishments in 1937 was
660.000.	That figure does not correspond at all with the figure of 750,000 given by the minister, which he now says should be 783,000.


Humphrey Mitchell: That figure includes far more than industry. It includes mining, logging and commerce as well as industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want the minister to
understand that I am trying to help him. My whole life has been in labour and in industry, and I shall not say anything that would cause him grief or interfere with his programme for employment. Anything I say is intended to increase the number of employees. So that when I say that 660,000 were employed in
18,000	plants, large and small, in 1937, I hope that that number will be increased, and I think it can be increased as I hope to show later on. The minister also said:
This is a seasonal country.
That is true, but it is not true of industry. You, Mr. Chairman, from your long experience in your own city, where there are so* many manufacturing establishments just as there are in Toronto and in other cities represented by hon. members representing industrial centres, do not want our industries to be seasonal, I know the minister did not mean thatf but was referring to logging, harvesting, and so forth. What I am trying to point out is that the men we are in contact with in industry want permanent work with a chance to advance.
The minister also referred to unemployment insurance, and I' am going to throw out a warning in that connection. The minister knows that I was one of the first in this house to be concerned with unemployment insurance many years ago. After making a thorough survey and spending a lot of time in England studying the whole problem of
unemployment insurance I advocated it here in this house long before it came into effect, and when the Bennett government was in power, I made an address on this subject, as the minister knows.


Humphrey Mitchell: I remember quite well.
I was listening.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the minister knows that I always listened to* what he had to say.
I like listening to men who know what they are talking about.


Angus MacInnis: That is why you sit close to me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not lost anything by sitting close to my hon. friend. Coming back to unemployment insurance, I remember quite well, following my survey in England, that unemployment insurance had not been in operation for many years following the first great war and it had piled up a fund of hundreds of millions of pounds. But when the soldiers came back and unemployment rose to a high peak the vast number of millions of pounds stored up in that fund by those who had paid into it was quickly dissipated and the fund went back several hundred million pounds. So that I throw out the warning to the minister: Do not depend on unemployment insurance to do the impossible. That was not the intention of those who inaugurated it. It was rather to tide over a period when men were out of employment.
The minister also said that he was not fearful of the future. I am not either if we can only rise to the stature we should have and if we can be assisted by the country and with the will of God, Then we have no reason to fear the future. On the other hand, I think we should be apprehensive if we do not make a study of the problem to see that we shall have no reason to fear the future, I urge the minister not to relax under any circumstances but to look forward and plan and collaborate in every possible way to see that there are jobs, not two jobs for every man, as the Minister of Reconstruction said a few weeks ago. That would be a grand situation, but having been in business nil my life and having had a lot to do with employment I know that condition cannot obtain. But if the minister with the help and collaboration of the Minister of Reconstruction and the help of everyone who is willing to help him can bring about a condition where every man and woman will have a job I shall be thoroughly satisfied and I am sure the country will be, too.
In this connection one of the very first things which should be done is to find some means of eliminating strikes. The minister

Supply-Labour
has been making some effort in this direction in collaboration with the labour minister of Ontario and, perhaps, the other provincial labour ministers, all of whom have experience and are able to help. The Windsor strike, which is in all our minds, is typical of many others. I know quite a number of the men who formerly worked in the Ford factory; in fact I have some relations working there. We read that there are approximately ten thousand men and women unemployed in the city of Windsor. Assuming they have received an average of six to eight dollars a day-at any rate a substantial wage-in the ninety-odd days during which they have been unemployed they have lost in wages between six and seven million dollars. That is a tremendous loss, which nobody wants to have continued. From a personal acquaintance with many of the business men of Windsor I am sure that the loss of six or seven million dollars of purchasing power has affected the city seriously, and the minister and everyone of us should concentrate our best efforts on trying to eliminate the cause of strikes.
Long ago I arrived at the conclusion that the federal Minister of Labour should take the initiative in calling to Ottawa, for conference in the railway committee room or some other suitable place, the country's outstanding employers-I mean men who collectively employ between 100,000 and 150,000 of the 660,000 persons employed in industry in 1937-and also the heads of Canadian labour. The government could bring them here at its own expense, get them around a table and see if they cannot iron out their difficulties. What is the reason that labour and industry cannot get along together? They are all human; their interests should be to work together'. I am sure that the employer to-day is the same as I was. He knows that when the wheels are not turning nothing is being produced; one is just adding to the cost of that which will be produced later. As for the labour man, he knows that he is losing his very livelihood. All these should sit around a long table and try to iron out their differences. It was never more necessary than now, when we are entering a period of post-war competition and Canada has a golden opportunity to expand if only we keep our wheels turning and our men working. How can this be done? Perhaps it can be done by calling representative men together.
If we view the matter from another aspect, is our legislation complete to-day? The minister made, in conjunction with the minister of labour of Ontario, a vigorous and honest effort to end the strike at Windsor. I should like to hear something as to why it was not 
stopped; and if it cannot be stopped, is there any legisation we could bring into effect which would stop it and strikes of a similar nature? While the strike was on, I went one day to Montreal to discuss with some of the biggest labour men in the country how a settlement could be brought about, and it was suggested that perhaps, over and above the machinery which is now at the disposal of the minister, there might be appointed a judicial board, headed by a jurist like Judge Gillanders, with whom could be associated an outstanding labour man like Howard Chase, and one of the minister's capable departmental officials, Bernard Rose, K.C., whom I do not know, would be obtainable or not. At any rate there could be a. board consisting of men of capacity, similar to the three I have mentioned, with power to say what shall or shall not take place, and with authority above the boards which the minister now has, so that strikes may be eliminated and men will be able to work. I cannot help thinking of the wives and families of the men in Windsor and what they are enduring to-day. They are the last who should have to suffer. So that if the minister, either during the recess or shortly afterwards, can figure out any way to bring in legislation, somewhat along the lines I am suggesting, which would eliminate strikes he would be doing a marvellous thing for this country. Once this problem is solved, we should be assured of some measure of security. We all agree that the man working in the factory is entitled to security., To-day he does not have it. Times without number I have seen the result of men being laid off. I will not enlarge on this at the moment; I have referred to it before.
I want to point out some of the problems which will need specific attention. A great many men in the armed services never had a job before they enlisted. I refer, of course, to the young men. They are untrained. I suggest that special consideration be given to these lads who had no jobs before the war. I pray that they will not come home, after serving for years in the blood and mud of Europe, to the same conditions they were in before they went over there.
Then there are multitudes of young men who went into the war late, because at the time it broke out they were not old enough to enlist. They were young lads who had just started in high school-seventeen, eighteen and nineteen-year olds. These boys, too, have not had any opportunities and I hope consideration will be given to them. Some have suggested that they should be kept temporarily on the payrolls of the country. I have arrived at the same conclusion. If a job is

Supply-Labour
available they ought to take it. If a job is not available they should not be abandoned to the cold mercies of the world, because in this northern climate the world can be pretty cold.
We have also numbers of men who, when the war broke out were between fifty-five and sixty years old. During the war they were engaged in industry at good pay, better probably than they had ever before earned in their lives. These men are too young for the old age pension and too old to be thrown out in the cold. They present another problem.
I wish to offer some suggestions as to how things could be improved. I am convinced that industry will do its part. The minister said as much Saturday night. Nearly every executive I know of-and I know them by the hundred-started as I did at the bottom of the plant and worked to the top of it. The hearts of these men are responsive to appeals to provide employment, and I have great hopes that industry will do everything it can to re-tool, make what they made before, and undertake new lines to provide for this vast backlog of required employment.
I am convinced that family allowances will help a great deal. I supported the family allowance legislation, because I have seen during the depression so many boys and girls half-starved and half-dressed. Family allowances will eliminate that condition. When mothers are able to buy, nobody can beat the mothers in looking after their young sons and daughters. I see everywhere around me where the money is being used to make purchases for family needs. Perhaps in the odd case the money is squandered, but in the aggregate, I am convinced, Canadian people using the allowance will use it to the best advantage, and thereby in their turn, promote further employment. That, too, will provide a good deal of employment, and that is the reason I voted for it. The corner store, the little shoemaker, and all the small businesses round about will benefit. I am glad to see that the provinces are helping, and I hope the minister will consult with his colleague the Minister of Reconstruction. I say to the Minister of Labour:	Do not let that minister put it
over you:


Humphrey Mitchell: Take a look at me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I say to the minister:
You have determination-so has the Minister of Reconstruction-and when he tells you that you cannot have $50,000,000 for this purpose, double up your fists, stick out your chin a little further, and say to him, "I want something for these men who are unemployed and I am determined to get it." If the Minister of Labour does this I am with him.
I am glad to see that the province of Ontario is going to spend $70,000,000 in connection with hydro development on the Ottawa river. Why could we not extend that programme? There is little hydro development in the west except to some extent in Manitoba and Alberta, and there should be plenty of opportunity all along the line for the minister to urge his colleague to do everything in his power to see that Canadian men and women are given employment.
Then there are the municipalities. The Toronto transportation commission is ready to undertake the spending, I believe, of some twenty or twenty-five million dollars to build a subway throughout the city. But, of course, it will be expected that the Department of Reconstruction and the Department of Labour will assist. Perhaps they plan to do so. The federal government might contribute half the cost, and in any event it should render some assistance. The same applies to Montreal. These are two great Canadian cities; I would call them devoted cities. They have done a' great deal for Canada in their subscriptions to the victory loans. They have subscribed to the last dollar in every loan to carry this country through. Other cities, of course, and the Canadian people generally have also played their part, but I mention these two cities because they are entitled to consideration. I am not overlooking other cities when I say that.
Then there are the industrial commissions. The Toronto industrial commission during the last sixteen years has done very good work and now under the leadership of John A. Tory, and formerly under Charles Burton of the Simpson company. Through their efforts they have brought to the city of Toronto 221 plants large and small which have given employment to thousands of people in that length of time. In 1944 they brought in a sufficient number of plants to cover 112 acres of land. I suggest to the minister that he get in touch with every industrial commission in Canada, and where there are no commissions they should be urged to establish such organizations. I might mention Stratford, Peterborough, Brantford, Windsor, Sherbrooke, Quebec, which are only a few of a multitude that might be named. If the minister would get in touch with the various industrial commissions he would obtain invaluable assistance. All I want to do is to help the minister to provide employment.
In the United1 States they are going in for the construction of roads in a big way. They are going to vote some three billion dollars. Well, goodness knows, Canada is one country

Supply-Labour

where such work can be carried out to advantage. The Minister of Reconstruction and the Minister of Labour should collaborate on a proper road construction policy for Canada. Our distances are too great by the circuitous routes that have to be followed' in most cases. Let them introduce a programme that will shorten distances between cities, by straightening out roads, and so cutting down the cost of travelling. If you cut down the cost of travelling and traffic you will cut down correspondingly the cost of production. Everything possible should be done by the Departments of Labour, Reconstruction and Finance to reduce production costs in Canada, because otherwise we cannot hope to compete successfully against all comers. But whatever is done, I am opposed to a reduction in wages. Far from it; I think wages ought to be increased. They are not too high as it is. When one considers the rents that have to be paid, and the cost of living, the workingman's wages have not gone up proportionately. But it ought to be possible to cut down production costs by providing cheaper power. The Almighty has endowed1 this country with the cheapest kind of power, hydro electric, and that is an avenue which can well be developed. If we do that and shorten the routes of traffic to bring materials to factories at lower cost we are bound to reduce the cost of production. But do not cut down wages; increase them, so as to' bring up the standard of living.
I could speak at greater length on this subject, and no one knows better than you do, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Golding), how important it is, because you have devoted a good deal of your time to industry. My heart is attuned to the interests of the working class, and you cannot do anything to help them unless you pay them good wages.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I might reply briefly to my very good and hon. friend, he said something about not relaxing. Let me say frankly to the committee that the way we have been carrying on since this session began is inhuman, and I say that as Minister of Labour. I do not think any human being should be asked to stand the strain that we have had to bear, in the last two weeks especially, and administer departments at the same time. We talk about a forty-hour week and take-home pay, or arrive-home pay, as it is sometimes called, which is a slightly different thing from take-home pay. In my opinion the time is long overdue for an amendment of the procedure of the House of Commons. To spend hours and hours on estimates in this committee is not right. I say this construe-
tively, because I think that the sooner we adopt the British practice of having estimates studied in committee rooms instead of on the floor of the house, the better it will be for all concerned. When we do that we shall do better work on the basic legislation that comes before parliament every year.
My hon. friend1 said something about the elimination of strikes, and he mentioned one large industrial dispute that is going on in the dominion. I do not wish to say anything that might influence the decision in that dispute; it would not be wise for me to do so. We all hope that in the course of the next few days it will be terminated. At the same time, I believe that leaders of labour and industry, as well as governments, both federal and provincial, should take some credit for the fact that this country has fewer disputes than any other in the world. At this moment we have only one major dispute, at Windsor, and one or two smaller ones, and this, in a population of 12,000,000 people. I have tried to analyse the situation to find the reason for this.
My hon. friend spoke about the passing of laws. I think you can have too much law. If I may say it without the slightest intention of offending, I think our good friends to the south of us have too much. They think they can solve a thing by the mere passing of a law. I do not think that is the answer; the answer lies in the hearts of men. I am convinced, as I have said before, not in this parliament but in the last one, that character is the basis of .trade union agreement. Where you get character on both sides of the table, together with an understanding of the economics of industry and a willingness ' to give andi take, you have what spells for success in trade unionism, as exemplified in this dominion.
My hon. friend spoke of a national meeting. If I may say so with deference, we have a meeting complex. There are so many people running up and down the country that they do not have time to think. I believe it is far better for officials and their principals to go to national conventions and organizations -labour organizations and employer organizations-so as to get not only their official but their ,off-the-record opinions. I think you get a better understanding of the problems in that way, both from industry and from labour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Could you not get the heads of each together in one room?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have sat in many rooms of various kinds. I say this in a kindly way, but Mr. Truman held one of these

Supply-Labour
meetings the other day, and I do not know that it accomplished a great deal. I would not say that our method of doing business is better than theirs, but if I may say so, the results tell the story.
Then my hon. friend spoke of returned men, and I think I should say a word or two about that. So far, more than three hundred thousand men and women have been discharged from the armed forces, but at the present time only ninteen thousand of these people are registered as having been unemployed for more than fifteen days. My hon. friend spoke of training. We have ample training facilities, ' in cooperation with the provinces, for any returned men who want it. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has pointed out the educational facilities that are available -to any man or women with the necessary qualifications, after discharge from the armed forces.
I think I have gone over pretty well all the ground covered by my hon. friend, but I wish to say that I agree with him that no wage can be high enough if the production is there. It is the unit of production that counts, and I believe that wages should be paid in -proportion to that, unit of production.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: On several occasions this session attacks have been made on individual civil servants from a certain position on the government benches.
I think any member of parliament who attacks a civil servant by name is indulging in unseemly and ill-becoming behaviour. If anyone has to take responsibility the minister himself should be attacked; he is quite capable of looking -after himself.
' I mention that as a preface to what I am about to say, because I intend mentioning the name of a civil servant. I cannot avoid doing so, because I am going to quote from a document which has been sent out by the information division of the Department of Labour. This particular copy got into the hands of the Winnipeg labour council. It is dated November 22, 1945, and headed "Jobs, and selected jobs." It goes on to say:
Mr. MacNamara, deputy minister of labour, would -appreciate any local publicity that you might get on the following editorial from the . Ottawa Journal, November 20, 1945.
I am not going to quote the entire editorial, but this is the concluding paragraph:
We hear much these days about "full employment." That (if it is -attainable at -al1, which we -doubt) doesn't -mean work -for everybody at the jobs they like, or -a home for everybody in-the place they -like. Full employment means that people must move to jobs, not jobs to people, and that there -must be enough people willing -to take -all the sort of jobs that are
47696-231J
offered. In a collectivist state, towards which we seem to be moving, full employment may even mean that people must work -at what they are told to work at, where they -are told to work, and at w-h-at hours -and wages.^
This release from the Department of Labour was the cause of much discussion and some alarm among those at the meeting of the Winnipeg labour council. It appears to many that the government subscribes -to these policies, or that this is the policy of the government, and I should like some clarification by the minister in that respect.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say first, without equivocation, that this does not represent the policy of the government or my own personal opinion. When I was charged with responsibility for selective service on both the military and civilian sides I made this observation to this House of Commons, or words to this effect; that I hoped nothing I had to do would in any way damage the basic principles of freedom that have made the Canadian people what they are. No doubt hon. members have followed our actions with respect to selective service, and they will agree that we went about removing controls perhaps more quickly than any other department in the government. I believe in a free country; I believe that people suffer for their sins if they do the wrong thing. That is basic.
Getting back to this letter, may I tell- my hon. friend that I receive the information service from one of the other departments, I forget what it is just now, and sometimes see articles which are critical of myself. That is a government agency. In the Department of Labour we have an- information service from which editorial and newspaper comments from all sections of the press are sent to civil servants across the country. The article in question here came from the Ottawa Journal, When I speak about the basic principles of freedom, let me say that I know something: about Mr. MacNamara, or at least I should^ and he thinks exactly as I do in these matters. By that I mean he is a liberal mentally; I* do not know what his politics were before he-became a civil servant. I wish to say further,. - Mr. Chairman, that this nation can thank goodness for Arthur MacNamara. I do not care about your O.B.U. or W.C.T.U. or any of the rest of them; let them say what they will. I am not addressing this particularly to my hon. friend, of course; I am speaking in vigorous terms because I believe what I am saying-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not think the W.C.T.U. wotdd care much about it.
Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, you cannot tell; sometimes people do silly things, even the W.C.T.U., although I do not wish to cast any reflection upon them. I do not know much about them; I belong on the other side of the fence. But I do resent that attack on Mr. MacNamara, because I know something of the contribution he has made to the life of this country. I know something about his social outlook, naturally, too. No doubt this editorial did appear in the Ottawa Journal. I do not know what prompted it, but certainly neither the party of my hon, friend nor the party which is to his left, nor the official opposition nor the government of the day-


Angus MacInnis: The party that were to his left.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not mean the party down in the corner. I stopped right there; I am not fooling myself about these things. None of these parties subscribe by one iota to any expression of opinion in any newspaper to the effect that we are inevitably drifting toward collectivism. For one thing, the Canadian people are not foolish. When it comes to freedom I know of no nation on earth that has a deeper regard for the basic principles of freedom that have made the British people what they are.


Angus MacInnis: At this stage of the session I suppose it is too late to make a speech, which I regret; so that I shall content myself with asking the minister a few questions. I imagine we shall be back here in about two months and a half, and perhaps all we need be concerned about now is that provision is made for situations which may develop in that time. It is too late this session to discuss policy, unless we intend to stay here until after Christmas.
If the minister has the information I should be glad if he would give the committee the latest figures as to applications for employment; placements; the number of those placements which are permanent, by which I mean in occupations which will continue for a period of time and which are not seasonal; the number that are seasonal, together with the number unemployed at the date mentioned, that is the number for which no jobs were available. If the government has any policy for assisting provinces and municipalities where large-scale unemployment takes place, I should like to know what it is.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry we have not the figures respecting seasonal and other kinds of employment. As a matter of fact, it is only since the establishment of unemployment 
insurance that we have really gone into the statistical feature of the matter. I have before me some figures which I shall have, boiled down so as to give some indication of the number of vacancies.
Then, the hon. member asked as to any special arrangements with the provinces. At the present time we have none. However, as he knows, the matter is now under discussion, in connection with the '.dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction.
Figures which have been handed me just now show that unfilled vacancies at the present time total 88,845 while unplaced applicants number 184,523.


Angus MacInnis: I am somewhat disturbed about the unemployment insurance commission, something in which, as a trade unionist for many years, I have been keenly interested. When the measure was introduced I supported it and, along with some other hon. members, most of whom are not in the chamber this afternoon, considered it in the special committee. I believe the feeling at that time was that the bill was not a bad one. At the close of the session I did my best to have the unemployment insurance measure accepted throughout the country. There was some resistance to it, although not very much.
The Unemployment Insurance Act makes provision for administration by three commissioners, the first of whom was to be the chairman, the second to be appointed after consultation with employers, and the third after consultation with trade union organizations. The business of the commission can be carried on only after the vote of a majority of that commission has been secured. At the present time, and for some months past, only one commissioner has been acting. I do not know when the employers' representative resigned, but I understand that it was some time early in the autumn. Then, the term for which the workers' representative was appointed ended in September. Obviously, since that time the commission must have been carrying on without legal authority. If a majority of the commission is required, then that would mean that two would have to be present. When only one is present, clearly it is not functioning properly.
There is a provision in the act which states that if a commissioner is absent, and is not in a position to perform his duties, a substitute may be appointed. ' This indicates that when the measure was drawn up there was an understanding that there should be a full board at all times. All cases which come before the board present two points of view, namely those of the employers and those of

Supply-Labour
the employees, both of whom are contributors under the act. If decisions are made without representatives from vthose two groups I suggest that the way is left open for all sorts of suspicion that things are not being done properly.
On what date did Mr. Mitchell resign, and when did Mr. Talon's term expire? How has the commission been carrying on since those dates?


Humphrey Mitchell: The date of Mr. Mitchell's resignation is July 31, and Mr. Talon's term expired on September 23.
As the hon. member knows, when I was in charge of organizing selective service certain powers were turned over to me, namely the powers of direction of the employment service. That order in council is still in operation. Perhaps it is more necessary to-day than it was when we first tried to organize the civilian population for war purposes.
The question of filling vacancies on the commission is under consideration, and in due course after this long session is over, and when we have had some rest, the country will be informed as to the composition of the commission.


Angus MacInnis: Did the order in council
provide that the minister could function without the unemployment insurance commission?
I do not recall having seen any order in council which made provision for disregarding the unemployment insurance commission. If such order in council was not passed, then in my opinion a general order in council does not give the minister the right to dispense with the services of the commission set up under an act of parliament, and to perform the functions of the commission himself. This is a serious matter.


Mr. McMASTER:: In what may have been a state of righteous indignation the minister, speaking a short time ago, made use of certain letters some of which sounded familiar to me. I was wondering whether he used only a jumble of letters, or whether he intended those letters to represent any particular organization.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; there was nothing
sinister in my mind at the time. I was simply reaching out for letters. In fact, I am not quite sure what the letters W.C.T.U. stand for-although I believe it is a temperance organization. However, I want it clearly understood that I was not casting any reflection on any organization.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has said
that the strike at Windsor is the only labour
disturbance of major importance at the present time. That strike has been going on much too long and, in view of the fact that other strikes have been settled more rapidly it seems to me that, had the minister been willing to take the necessary steps, the Windsor strike might have been settled more quickly.
In a strike of this kind between thousands of workers and the owners of a wealthy organization the time element is an important one. The people of Windsor are learning that, to their sorrow, to-day. They are learning, too, that in the type of struggle they are having, in which they seek to establish and maintain certain basic rights-and I believe the minister will agree that they are basic rights, since they include the right of union security-delay assists the owners. The very existence of the workers depends upon work. They are learning the truth of the assertion that those who own the machinery of production own their very way of living, their very lives. If the workers have no control over union security they are entirely at the mercy of those who hire and fire them.
It would appear to me that the delay has been much too long. Whether we say we are taking one side or the other does not make very much difference if the delay works to the disadvantage of one side or the other. The minister has stated several times that this strike is the responsibility of the province, that the province must deal with it. Apparently that was not the attitude taken in connection with other strikes. I remember the threatened strike in the packing industry when the department went ahead and appointed a controller and the matter was settled very quickly.
I should like to know if at the coming conference between the provinces and the dominion the government is going to make definite representations to bring about a decision as io whether these labour matters shall be left in the hands of the dominion or in the hands of the provinces. I think the federal government is right in trying to secure uniformity in these matters.
The Windsor strike is a very serious matter. It is a .most unfortunate thing to have happen during our reconversion period. Some decision should be made with regard to legislation, so that this could be settled. I am sure the house and Canada are waiting anxiously to know whether it is possible to reach some settlement in the near future without prejudicing the rights of these people for union security. Probably some mistakes have been made on both sides. I think the union has had some leadership that was in error. I suppose the choice of leadership was their own, but perhaps there was some blame on the other side.
Supply-Labour

So far as the management is concerned, they did come out with a statement: You pass legislation which grants to people union security, the same as they propose to do on the other side, and we will abide by it. You should not make us obey a certain rule and not make the rest of the manufacturers obey it. Set down your rules with regard to laboui and we will follow them, but what is good for us must be good for the other fellow. I think they were right in that regard.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not really know how to answer the hon. member, but I know from his remarks that he has made a profound study of labour matters. There is no country in the world which recognizes by law the union shop; the only place where that is done is the province of Saskatchewan.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know, but you will leam what is wrong with it. You will probably have to suffer for your sins. I know I would put the judgment of Mr. Phil Murray and Mr. William Green and Mr. John L. Lewis against the judgment of my hon. friend, and even myself, in connection with industrial matters.


George Hugh Castleden: Rackets.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says "rackets", but I do not think that is a fair thing to say about Mr. Phil Murray.


George Hugh Castleden: There can be union rackets.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is a fair thing to say about Mr. Phil Murray. If my hon. friend had the same chivalry toward men in public life that Mr. Phil Murray has-


George Hugh Castleden: I did not say a word about Phil Murray.


Humphrey Mitchell: I mentioned three men and the hon. member said something about rackets. However, that is beside the point; let us get on with the business. At the recent *conference on industrial ..matters with Mr. Truman it was made quite clear by the American Federation of Labor, the C.I.O. and the railroad brotherhoods that they did not * want even arbitration by law, let alone some of the things my hon. friend talks about. Do not forget when you put those things into force you are getting almost into that collective state at which my hon. friend and myself take offence; that is what will happen when the government says to a man, "This is the organization you have to belong to."


An hon. MEMBER:: Not necessarily.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know of what I speak; that is what it means. The dividing line between freedom and persecution is so thin that trade union leaders, the older trade union leaders, have shown that they have more sense than to talk about compulsion and coercion by law. They have reached a stage of maturity not as yet reached by the younger people who have not had so much experience. My hon. friend spoke about the Ford strike, but at the moment I am not going to say any more about it. I do not think it would be wise for me to do so.


John Bracken: The minister has been receiving a great deal of attention from different quarters and has been asked a number of questions about several things. I am neither going to give him advice nor ask him questions, I am just going to make two or three suggestions from one who is a layman. I am not an expert on labour matters. There are several members on this side who have been studying this question; they are not here at the moment and I do not want them to be blamed for what I am going to say.
First, I should like to refer to the comments the minister has just made. He said that we should thank goodness for Arthur MacNamara. I think he is putting that in the wrong way.
I think we should thank the province of Manitoba for letting him come here, and I think we should thank one of the outstanding governments of Manitoba for having trained him for twenty years before he came here.
The minister said something about the rules of this house. I believe that every hon, member will agree with what he has said. I suggest that he give the same speech to the cabinet the next time it meets, so that the changes he suggests may be approved and we can avoid these long hours and hurried discussions during the late days of the session.
I have three suggestions to make. The first is in connection with low wages paid in certain places. The second is in connection with wages in relation to shorter work weeks. The third concerns the controls that have been hampering men in seeking the work they desire.	[DOT]
I suggest first, that the wage freezing order be lifted or modified with respect to substandard wages. I know the minister will have an answer that perhaps satisfies him, that that can be done by application to certain of his labour boards and so on, but I suggest that at this time there should be a general lifting of that order in so far as those receiving sub-standard wages are concerned.
There are also some industries in provinces which now have a forty-eight hour week

Supply-Labour
regulation., as well as in other provinces, industries which are willing to give the same weekly wage for a forty-eight hour week as they now give for a fifty, fifty-two or fifty-four hour week. Government regulations now prevent that from being dlone. These men should not have to go through the present red tape to get that benefit. My third suggestion is that there be an abandonment of such controls as hamper men in seeking the work they desire. I do not intend to take more time with these suggestions. I am aware that many controls have been removed, and possibly more have been removed than we know of, but there are still some in effect that should be lifted.
I shall take just a couple of minutes more to amplify this suggestion. Wage control order P.C. 93S4, controls sub-standard as well as other wages. The freezing of those particular wages was widely protested. It does not do any good now to say that one doubted the wisdom of freezing wages that were below standard. We recognize that controls were necessary7 during the war and possibly could not be avoided, but now that the war is over, my suggestion is that the freezing orders affecting sub-standard wages should be lifted.
My second suggestion is with respect to the 48-hour week. Some of the provinces now provide for that. But there are industries employing men for fifty, fifty-two and fifty-four hours a week which are willing to pay them the same total weekly wage for a 48-hour week. My suggestion is that where industries are willing to do that, no regulation should prevent it from being done.
My third point is with respect to men seeking employment. Prior to the war, men were free to seek employment where they could find it and choose the work that suited them, but during the war regulations were imposed to place men in particular lines of employment. The war is now over. I recognize that, while many of our veterans are still away and for other reasons .perhaps, some regulation may still be necessary with respect to preventing men from seeking employment where they "can find it. Generally speaking, however, the sooner the regulations which hamper men from finding employment best suited to them are removed, the better.
I am not an expert on these matters, and if I have made any errors I trust the able officers-around the minister, will not point out to him that what I suggested should not be done.


Humphrey Mitchell: The mind of the leader of the opposition I think travels veiy much along the same line as my own. The wage
control order is, at the moment, under review.
I would think, or I anticipate that the last vestige of selective service will disappear on the 1st of January. We still have the permit system left. We continued that for two reasons. One was to stop the drift from agriculture. We needed to keep the men in agriculture to get this year's crop out. They were given protection during the war because of the tremendous drift from agriculture into the armed services and into industry, and it was necessary to retain the permit system in order to get off the crop. The other reason was to permit us to give priority to veterans when vacancies occurred in industry and commerce.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister did not reply to my question whether the department was taking action at the dominion-provincial conference to establish a national labour code of uniform procedure dealing with labour disputes.	'


Humphrey Mitchell: We have one now.


George Hugh Castleden: I mean establishing it on a solid basis.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand the implication of my hon. friend's question, but, as he knows, we have a constitution in this country known as the British North America Act which gives jurisdiction in these matters to the provinces. The only way in which this government or any other federal government in power can assume responsibility for a national code such as he has in mind is by amendment of the British North America Act. You cannot do it by agreement. You cannot break the law by agreement, as my legal friends will appreciate. I would think we should get back to free collective bargaining in the not too distant future. Then, of course, the constitutional rights enjoyed by the provinces will be assumed by them.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the department
making representations in this regard to the dominion-provincial conference?


Humphrey Mitchell: We are discussing it and have discussed it at the conference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. Combines Investigation Act, $29,000.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Canadian Industries Limited, as I pointed out some time ago, has a virtual monopoly and stranglehold over many materials used in this country. I shall deal with one only. In western Canada there is a company called Merchants Consolidated Limited, which is made up of a great number of small retailers who got together to purchase their goods whole-
Supply-Labour

sale. C.I.L. refuse to sell to Merchants Consolidated sporting ammunition and Merchants Consolidated cannot buy it from any other firm in Canada, although they could import it if they were willing to pay heavy import duties. I think this is a case of monopolistic practice which could very well be investigated. Has the minister any intention of using the Combines Investigation Act to investigate these companies which are monopolistic in tendency, especially CI.L.?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am very glad to tell
my hon. friend that the Combines Investigation Act is no longer under my jurisdiction.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Then what is this vote
here for?


Humphrey Mitchell: The jurisdiction was
transferred about August 1 to the Department of Justice.


Thomas John Bentley: I am interested in this
matter, because it certainly looks as if there was some discrimination on the part of the explosives division of C.I.L. Since this item appears in the estimates of the Department of Labour for 1944-45, I think we are entitled to ask the minister what his department did about this matter when it was under his jurisdiction.


Humphrey Mitchell: It comes under the
jurisdiction of the Combines Investigation Act registrar, who upon representations or complaints from a certain number of persons-I have forgotten how many-can investigate any industry that is considered to be a combine. But the over-all controls of the government during the war were so rigid that it was well nigh impossible to operate a combine. Possibly, when we get back to a freer economy, if I may call it that for want of a better word, there will be need for investigations under the act.


Thomas John Bentley: We have waited until this item came up, thinking it was under the jurisdiction of the minister. I have here a long submission on behalf of Merchants Consolidated Limited and Falcon Hardware company against the explosives division of C.I.L. I do not want to hold up the committee. If I send it over to the minister will he see that it gets into the right hands because, so far as we who are interested in this matter are concerned, this item still comes under his department.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do
that. Will my hon. friend send it with a covering letter?


Thomas John Bentley: I will send it across the room to the minister now.
['Mr. Stewart.]


George Hugh Castleden: Let me give the minister an instance of the difficulties in which men are placed by the present controls. A man in my own part of the province, fifty-eight years of age, being unemployed, wrote to a packing company in Moose Jaw to find out whether they had the type of work he could do. A man of that age is not capable of doing very heavy work such as carrying around quarters of beef, but there is a certain type of work that he can do. The employment manager of Swift Canadian said that they had such employment for him but that he would have to get permission to go there from his local employment officer. This man interviewed his local officer and said that he had- employment in Moose Jaw and would like to get a permit to go. The chap in charge of the Yorkton office said, "Did you get a permit from us to go? Did you ask permission of us to write to this man?" He said. "No". The official said. "Well, we are giving you no permit; you do not go." The man said, "I would like to get work here but I could not find any." That man was compelled to go through the whole winter of 1944-45 looking for work. In the spring of the year he was unemployed, but he went around digging gardens and doing one thing and another. On the 5th of June the following year he received a sort of mimeographed letter. It came in with the rest of the mail and he thought it was of no particular consequence, but it was in actual fact a directive telling him that he was to go from Yorkton to the Swift Canadian company and take employment there. By this time he had established himself. He was working in the summertime at home, and he was satisfied with conditions. He thought this was merely a permit informing him that he could go if he wanted to; he did not understand its significance.


Humphrey Mitchell: Was this man a farmer?


George Hugh Castleden: No, he was not. He works on a farm in the summertime, and he threshes in the fall. He works in the spring, and in the wintertime likes to get employment such as in the packing plant. He went on getting a living at small jobs around town in June and July, went out threshing in August, came 'back the first of September, and was met by a police officer who handed him a summons for not having obeyed the directive. He appeared at the police court and was fined some $55 for disobeying the directive. The man was absolutely innocent; he had asked for work, and had been constantly refused by the local officers. Then, receiving this letter and not recognizing that it was a directive,

Supply-Labour
he went on with his employment and was penalized in court to the extent of $50 and costs. That sort of thing has a serious effect on the attitude of some people toward the government.
The other case relates to unemployment insurance and will be brought up under the appropriate item. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister with a suggestion that when these directives are given the man should be notified of the seriousness of the offence in case he fails to obey, because this man was quite innocent of any intention of disobeying the law, and in view of the fact that he had been refused permission when he , needed work he did not think the notice he afterwards received meant anything more than that he could go to this job if he wanted to.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it can be said that in my department we act with expedition on receiving information of cases like that to which my hon. friend refers; and if I might say this in a kindly way, I think that is better than to bring such cases up on the floor of the House of Commons. I suggest that the telephone is the right way to get answers to a lot of questions which are asked in this chamber. I have been told that it costs $60 a minute to run the House of Commons. If a member rises to make general suggestions on policy or present basic principles, that is different. If my hon. friend will turn this case over to our department, even at this late date, with the other case he has, I will endeavour to see that the men obtain justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
109. Payments to the provinces under agreements, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $750,000.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not know whether this is the place to bring up a question I have in mind. Some years ago there was administered a youth training grant. I did some work on that in Mantioba in cooperation with the present deputy minister and with the leader of the opposition, who was then premier of Manitoba, and although the amounts given by the dominion government were niggardly and miserly, the work which could have been done there was tremendous-work along the lines of eduction, teaching youngsters to live with each other and to use their leisure properly-and I think it could well be continued in the future. Could the minister give us any idea whether this plan will start again next year or in some predictable future time?


Humphrey Mitchell: All that my hon. friend has said about the scheme may be true. I was very close to Mr. MacNamara myself in those days as an executive assistant under the Hon. Norman Rogers. I would say that this plan laid the foundation of the war training programme under which we trained, I think, over
400,000	people. We had to build ships and tanks and guns and aeroplanes and other things which had never before been built in this country, with a small base of trained mechanics; and out of the experience we gained in the youth training scheme we used the same organization in cooperation with the provinces and built that tremendous industrial machine and the trained personnel necessary to operate it. The $750,000, I think, is in the estimates this year for that plan. Of course, in addition to that there are much larger amounts for the training of people coming back from the various theatres of war. I shall have the figure looked up in a minute. It runs into the millions, anyway.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
should like to point out that what was done in one place was to take a great number of young teachers and bring them together for a month to study together citizenship and life. It was a profitable experiment for the countiy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
112. Government's contribution to unemployment insurance fund, $13,500,000.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many applications for benefits under unemployment insurance have been received up to the most recent date of which the minister has record, and how many are now receiving benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: We will look it up. I think it is around 60,000.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: While it is being looked up, may I ask if the government is giving any consideration to shortening the waiting period for those who receive unemployment benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is, no.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Has the minister given any consideration to including others under unemployment insurance, for instance longshoremen and loggers?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is being done continuously. We have an advisory committee made up of employers' and employees' representatives to advise the commission, who in turn advise me as minister. My own view of unemployment insurance is that I would

Supply-Labour

have everyone, even members of parliament, under unemployment insurance. I think it is absolutely sound. Of course, in operating a big administrative machine like this you have to learn, and it takes time to develop so large an organization. The British scheme started oif with seven trades. We started off, I think, with between sixty-and seventy per cent of the people engaged in industry in this country. But I agree with my hon. friend that the quicker we can expand it to cover everybody, the better it will be for this dominion.
As to the figures the hon. member was asking for, live claims in October were 61,563; number of insured, two and three-quarter million.


Mr. SKEY:: Would the minister include women under the statement he has just made in respect of unemployment insurance?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are already under the act.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What balance has the government in hand at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is over $300 million.


Mr. PROBE:: I should like a short explanation from the minister of the item under administration of Unemployment Insurance Act for temporary assistance; it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,668,000 as compared with a little over one million dollars for the permanent staff. There must be some special reason for the apparent disproportion of temporary to permanent staff. Could we have a brief explanation for the benefit of one who is not so familiar as the minister with the workings of the staff?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will appreciate that the unemployment insurance commission was set up during the war, and of course men who have served overseas have a priority in appointments to the civil service. That is basic law. For that reason the great majority of the people employed by the commission are on a temporary basis. That is in keeping with the law.


John Oliver Probe: Is the situation such that this $10,000,000 or any large proportion of it will become a permanent payroll?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. I am thinking ahead of my hon. friend.


John Oliver Probe: 
Mr. JACKMAN:: May I ask the minister what he expects will be the financial results of the Hudson Bay railway project; not just the estimate for the present year, which is rapidly coming to a close, but what he expects will be the financial results for the next four or seven year period? I understand that during the brief hearing we had, while the manager was before the railways and shipping committee, it was pointed out that many of the structures and the right of way of the Hudson Bay railway were getting old, and that inasmuch as this railway does not set up any depreciation fund it is necessary to look after these rentals when they occur, so that obviously when the railway is new the rentals are not very costly, whereas, when the railway gets older, they mount up. Will the minister throw some light on anticipations for the next few years?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The position of the Hudson Bay railway is pretty much the same this year as it was last year. There is a decrease of $64,940 in the deficit and the amount of operating revenues has increased slightly this year as compared with last year, while operating expenses have also increased. I doubt whether any good purpose would be served by going into this matter at any length, because, as the hon. member knows, the manager of the Hudson Bay railway was here during the sitting of the railways and shipping committee and he gave evidence. I was under the impression then that the committee had obtained from him practically all the information that was desired at the time.


John Oliver Probe: With reference to the Hudson Bay railway, I went to the report of the committee, on the recommendation of the minister the other evening, to find out what was contained in that report, because it had slipped by me the last couple of weeks, and while it contains a logical enough explanation for the figures that are before the committee, I consider that we should have a statement from the minister so that in some way we can tie up the future of the Hudson Bay railway with the port of Churchill and the northeast gateway of the prairies. It is thirty-six years now since we started building what we look upon as a more or less natural gateway into and out of the prairies. Because the weight of the House of Commons and of the people of Canada generally is away from that section of the world, those of us who believe that we can improve our economy by making use of the

Supply-Transport
facilities which are at our door, imperfect though they may be in part, believe that we have had neither a complete and fair report on the possibilities of that harbour nor a recent note of optimism from the department as to what we can do with respect to that northeast gateway. Must we just forget about it and consider it a dream, or can the minister give us a constructive hope, shall we say, that "there's gold in them thar waters up there?"


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Ice anyway.


Lionel Chevrier: I went into this whole subject at great length on the discussion of the resolution of the hon, member for Churchill, and at that time I put on Hansard a number of tables and statements having to do with the capital cost of construction of the railway, of the harbour and other matters which I thought were of interest to the house. Apart from that there was the statement made by the manager of the railway before the railways and shipping committee. I can tell the hon. gentleman generally that the railway is being operated as efficiently as it possibly can be, and it is being operated by the Canadian National as agents for the Department of Transport.


John Oliver Probe: That is not what I am getting at. I am not disputing the efficiency of the railway; I am thinking of the future success of that route. We feel in the west that it has not had a chance. I read the report of the committee, and I saw nothing in there that would indicate that the government is going to change its policy with respect to the disuse of the port of Churchill. Yet at the same time the minister himself refers to a resolution that was concurred in by a fairly handsome majority in this house during the session that is now closing. What is to be done?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman asks me for a statement. I can only say that I have no other statement to make than that which I made on that occasion. If he wishes to know what the policy of the government is, it will depend on the amount of trade that can be taken out of that part of the country. The complaint thus far has been that there is' no ingoing cargo. There is wheat to be taken out of Churchill to other parts of the country and other parts of the world, but there is no ingoing cargo. That, as I say, has been the complaint. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Well, if means were adopted to keep the port open for a longer period, perhaps something could be done. I do not disagree with that, but I say that, according to the experts of the Department of Transport, unfortunately the port can be kept open for 47696-2324
only a small portion of the year, and unless that position is changed I am afraid the outlook is not too bright. Again, something was said about assisting shipping interests to go into that port. In that regard I can say that the national harbours board and the Canadian shipping board have done a great deal in that direction, and are still working in an attempt to get grain out of Churchill. At this date I think it is too early to make any announcement about possible shipments in the spring.


John Oliver Probe: I do not want this matter closed just yet. With regard to incoming cargoes, surely our trade commissioners in all parts of the world could arrange to have . cargoes brought to Churchill, just in the same way that they foster the promotion of international trade generally. This does not look to me at all like an insurmountable problem. Supposing we can operate Churchill for only three months, or for only four months. I do ' not believe either of these figures is given- by any official with finality, and if the government were sincere in operating the port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay route I suggest that it would use the facilities it already has all over the world in connection with bringing imports to this country. I should like the government to say that they will give this thing a trial for at least three or four years, using perhaps what is left of the Park Steamship company. Run it as a government proposition; let the government take the loss-that agrees with private enterprise principles anyway-and then if it should be profitable turn it over to private enterprise. If not, wash it out and we shall forget about it. We still think it is feasible.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I believe that point is well taken. As the matter stands to-day, the country is losing half a million dollars a year on the Hudson Bay railway, and seems destined to lose a great deal more as the line gets older. I bekeve, with the hon. member for Regina City, that the route should be given a fail trial. Now that the war is over, I believe the minister should see whether it will be possible to send enough grain shipments through Churchill, and perhaps get enough incoming shipments, to give the line a fair trial once and. for all, and let us discover whether we have a white elephant on our hands or whether the hopes of many people in the west are justified. Let us discover whether this line will at least carry itself, if not make a profit, and so take a burden off the taxpayers of this country. Could1 the minister say whether anything can be done by his department or by the government to give this line what
Supply-Transport

might be considered a fair trial in the opinion of those people who come from the west and who know something about the territory there?	.


Lionel Chevrier: I can add nothing to what I have said already.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-civil aviation division-
886. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $304,000.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: I should like to ask the minister if the licensing of private pilots and transport pilots comes under his department under this item.


Lionel Chevrier: No; this part of the department is under the Minister of Reconstruction by virtue of the Transfer of Duties Act. The Minister of Reconstruction controls civil aviation, and the operation of the Aeronautics Act and the regulations thereunder.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the minister anticipate that this branch will again come under his jurisdiction as part of the Department of Transport, or will it remain in the other department?


Lionel Chevrier: That will be a matter for the governor in council to decide, and the policy will be made known in due course.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Would the minister object if I made an observation on this item?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly not.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: During the war many service personnel qualified in many aspects of air transport including pilotage, navigation, wireless operating, meteorology and all the other subjects which any aircrew member had to study. They have qualified under service regulations, but they are still forced by the Department of Transport to try examinations before they have the same privilege of operating aircraft under civil administration that ordinarily they would have under military administration. I refer particularly to their green licence cards which entitle them to fly blind over an airways route. All service pilots with any experience are qualified in the subjects which the Department of Transport now requires them to take in order to requalify for this licence. I have in mind the position in the United Kingdom, whereby the air ministry has control of the licensing of private and transport pilots; and any pilot or other aircrew category qualified under the military regulations is automatically given civil qualification. I should like to bring this point to {Mr. Jackman.]
the consideration of the minister, because even at the present time we have in the service men who are requalifying, wasting their time in studying subjects they have already taken.


Lionel Chevrier: The only thing I can say is that I will bring these suggestions to the attention of the Minister of Reconstruction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-radio division-
895. Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $748,375.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister a general question? We' find that many of these estimates are for items which are used almost exclusively by Trans-Canada Air Lines, although they would be available to private services if there were such private services in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is speaking to item 395?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am just on the general question. Could the minister give the committee the total amount that has been spent on airfields in Canada, including meteorological devices, radar equipment and so on? Perhaps I should divide the question into the amounts spent under civil estimates and out of war expenditures, so that we might have some idea how much is invested on capital account in these various matters of equipment.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman allow the question to stand for the time being? It is a detailed one, part of which was answered by the Minister of Reconstruction on the war estimates. As to the other part, I shall try to get the hon. gentleman a reply as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-radio division-
897. Issue of radio receiving licences-(transport department only), $216,975.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would the minister tell us exactly how much' it costs to collect the $4,018,000 in radio fees? I have never been able to get this straight. In the radio committee a year ago we were told that something like $230,000 was paid in vendors' commissions and $306,000 in administration costs. Is this $216,000 in addition to all that, as the cost of collecting some $4,000,000?


Lionel Chevrier: The total cost of collection of licence fees for the fiscal year 1944-45 is $217,348.60, and it is not included in the amount of fees received.

Supply-Transport


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The way I figure it out is this: First of all, licence fees collected in those years, amounted to 84,018,000. Vendors' commissions amounted to $230,000, and there was an amount of $306,000 for administration fees. Then we have a further amount of $216,000 on top of that. If that is so, it means that it costs $753,000 to collect $4 million.
Why should we collect licence fees from those who own radios? Everybody listens to the radio and is interested in it. Why should the individual who owns the radio have to pay a nuisance tax of $2.50, when everyone in Canada gets the benefit of radio? The fact that it costs $753,000 to collect $4 million is simply ridiculous. What is the difficulty?


Lionel Chevrier: The total cost of the collection of fees is $521,472.75, which is made up of, first, commissions deducted at the source, amounting to $304,124.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think that can be quite right. There is more involved in it than that. First of all, we have vendors' commissions of $230,000, as was explained in the radio committee, and administrative costs of $306,000. Where does this other figure come into the picture? Let us suppose we take only the first two items of $230,000 and $306,000-and these certainly are in the report .

we would have a total of $536,000 which it costs the country to collect $4 million. Why should anyone who owns a radio have to pay for that privilege, in these modem days when everyone enjoys the benefit of radio?


Mr. BOUCHER:: How much does it cost to investigate and to prosecute or to threaten prosecution in connection with those who do not buy their licences?


Lionel Chevrier: I can give the hon. member for St. Paul's the break-down, as I have it, of the cost of collecting radio licence fees. To the administration is charged $188,211 on account of the radio division and $29,136 on account of the treasury branch, making a total of $217,348.60. Then there are commissions deducted at the source, and not included in gross revenue, of $304,124.15, making a grand total of $521,472.75. That is the breakdown of the total cost.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What was the total amount of commissions collected from the public?


Lionel Chevrier: It amounts to $304,124.15.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And the total amount of revenue was $4 million?


Lionel Chevrier: The total revenue was $4,000,801.
An hon. MEMBER. Carried.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No, it is not carried yet.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give details as to the cost of investigations or prosecutions. Those figures are not kept separately, but I shall ask if they can be obtained.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We find that it costs $500,000 to collect $4 million. Does the minister not think that in the interests of economy it would be better to collect the money through the Department of National Revenue, and save that $500,000? Does the minister not think that each individual should contribute to radio, instead of limiting it to those who buy radios?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I completely disagree with my hon. friend, because this is one of the finest form of occupation for those who have served their country in various ways in Canada. This is a very modest amount that they receive, and I say that it is a fine investment to help them along, in their employment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I would rather do it in some other way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You would.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I would rather do it in some other way. After all, we have to think about economy in this country. In 1938 we had 44,000 civil servants in Canada, and to-day we have 150,000. While in 1938 we paid $88 million for the conduct of oui civil service, to-day we pay $229 million. May I remind the government, which sits opposite, that we must think about economy in this country. That is why I have brought this matter up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government-owned enterprises-non-active accounts-National harbours board-
420. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1945 on any or >all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures- Generally,-unforseen and miscellaneous, $200,000.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is this the item under which the grain elevator at Churchill might be discussed?


Lionel Chevrier: No.	.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is the elevator under
the minister's administration?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport
[Stage Direction]
Special-Deficits-Prince Edward. Island car
ferry and terminals-
421. Amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1945-46 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of /Transport, made from time -to time by -the national company to the Minister of Finance, -and to be applied by the national company in payment of -the deficit certified by the auditors of -the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calender year 1945, $713,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: 
Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Transport cannot set the rate.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the minister tell this committee that he has no authority over rates?


Lionel Chevrier: I said that the minister could not set the rate.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the minister mean by that, that the government cannot set the rate?


Lionel Chevrier: I will explain what I mean when I answer the hon. gentleman.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then I do not know just where I stand in this matter. But no matter what rates are set on this ferry owned by the government of Canada, the government of Canada are in duty bound to fulfil their part of the contract and give us a rate which is in proportion to all the other rates on ferries for similar traffic. They are not giving us this rate now and we are the ones who are suffering. I have no complaint to make with reference to the Canadian National Railways. That is their business. If they can extract more money, that is for the benefit of themselves. Their service is all right; but their charge is prohibitive, and without any reason or satisfaction to the people of my province. Imagine a rate of $60.65 for carrying a truck a distance of eighteen miles! According to the transportation laws and the transportation commission which sat a few years ago in Ontario and established the rates for transportation by truck, this is a prohibitive rate to a great degree, and again I say to the minister that before another session of this house I want him to establish the rates on trucks. He may tell me and tell this committee that he has no authority to do that. I disagree, because his department and the government are the owners of this means of transport. I could say a great deal more with reference to these prohibitive rates on the car ferry, but I do not want to delay the committee.
Let me say, in closing, that we expect in our province at least fair treatment. It does not matter to the Canadian National Railways . whether the rate is $10.60 or whether it is $60.65, because every dollar that they lose in operating this ferry they bill the government for, and it is paid, and correctly so, according to the terms of agreement under which we entered into confederation. But I want to see
an individual who is operating a business so
protected by the new rates that he can deal with the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick by truck traffic. I want the Minister of Transport to make a mental reservation regarding this matter and to provide us in the near future with a rate that is at least fair and equitable.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has raised a number of questions to which it would take some time to reply. I should like to reply at some length, but I feel that in justice and in fairness to the committee I should not go into any detail. But I wish to reply briefly to some of the questions he raised.
He said that the government should look after the transportation problems in Prince Edward Island. I say to him that the government has looked into those problems; is giving them serious consideration, and is spending a considerable sum of money. My hon. friend is not unmindful of the fact that already we have made commitments for improving the facilities at Tormentine and Borden.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is under the Minister of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: It does not matter under whose department it is. At the moment it is under the Department of Transport, but that is aside from the question. We are spending on these facilities somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,500,000. That is over and above the new ferry boat, which will cost between $4,500,000 and $5,000,000. That is over $11,000,000 for these facilities. So that I am sure the hon. gentleman cannot say that we are not looking with interest into the transportation problems between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
He also asked with reference to the ferry boat. In my answer to his question on the order paper I stated that it would be late in the summer of 1946 before we could expect the ferry boat to be completed. There are many reasons why this could not be done sooner. I should like to be able to go into those reasons fully, but I feel that I should not take up the time of the committee. I have a long statement here showing just what progress has been made with reference to this Prince Edward Island car ferry, and I should be glad to. show it to my hon. friend. It is a progress statement as of November 28, 1945, and shows what progress has been made on the construction of various units of the car ferry. It is an interesting document, but too lengthy for me to read at'this stage.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would the minister put that statement on the record?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to put it on Hansard. The statement follows:
New Prince Edward Island Car Ferry-Progress to November 28, 1945 '

(under construction at Marine Industries Limited)
Steel construction in hull up to oar deck, including 9 strakes shell plating, floors, 90 per cent
erected.
Deck plating, bulkheads and longitudinal stringers, 50 per cent erected.
Structure above car deck, 15 per cent erected.
The loft moulds for remaining shell plating, fenders, rail supports, mezzanine deck plating, tdp side framing and top side bulkheads, 85 per cent finished.
Stem completed.
Lower portion stem frame machined.
Pattern for shaft brackets completed.
Diesel Engines
(under construction at Dominion Engineering Works)
8 Main Propulsion Units-
Unit No. 1, completed and tests to commence to-night, November 28.
Unit No. 2, practically completed and tests expected to be commenced soon after No. 1 tests have been completed.
Unit No. 3, on erection bed-80 per cent finished.
Unit No. 4, on erection bed-80 per cent finished.
Unit No. 5, on erection bed-70 per cent finished.
Unit No. 6, on erection bed-50 per cent finished.
Unit No. 7, on erection bed-35 per cent finished.
Unit No. 8, on erection bed-20 per cent finished.
(One unit comprises 2-6 cylinder Diesel engines.)
Auxiliary generating units-parts passing through machine shop.
Motors and Generators (under construction at Canadian General Electric Company)
8-1050 K.W. Main power Generators-
Units No. 1 and No. 2-now ready for test. Units No. 3 and No. 4-Shop tests completed and units delivered to Dominion Engineering Company.
Units No. 5 and No. 6-Assembled on test beds.
Unit No. 7-75 per cent complete.
Unit No. 8-65 per cent complete.
3-	330 K.W. Auxiliary Power Generators

All 3 armatures completed and field poles
being installed-85 per cent complete.
4-	3850 H.P. Propulsion Motors-
Unit No. 1-60 per cent complete.
Unit No. 2-50 per cent complete.
Units No. 3 and No. 4-35 per cent complete. Auxiliary Power Generator Switchboard- Structural steel case-95 per cent complete.
My hon. friend raised several other questions. He laid stress on truck transportation and the rates paid on these trucks when carried by the ferry. He is of the opinion that the Minister of Transport should elim-[Mr. McLure.l
inate what he calls these prohibitive rates. I say to him that the minister has no authority to do that. The rates are filed with the board of transport commissioners on automobiles and trucks carried by the Canadian National Railways on the ferry between the island and the mainland, and it would appear from the information I have at hand that anyone who wishes to complain about these rates can do so before the board. I am not prepared to disagree with the hon. gentleman upon the amount of -these rates. The explanation given before the railways and shipping committee by the president of the Canadian National Railways was that in fixing the rates on the ferry regard had to be had to similar railway rates. He also gave other explanations, which the hon. gentleman can find in the evidence of that committee. For the hon. gentleman's information I am sending over to him three photographs showing the progress of the Prince Edward Island car ferry as it is now in course of construction at Sorel.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: With reference to these rates, I understood the minister to say that the commission set these rates, and that he as minister of the Department of Transport did not have the authority to go into them in detail or have them reduced.


Lionel Chevrier: To fix the rates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is another ferry
operating between Woods islands and Cariboo, and -the rates on that were fixed by this government, which pays a bonus to the people operating that ferry.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The rates on that fefry on small trucks are less than half of what they set on- the other, although the distance is twice as far, and I take it from the minister that the only redress we can have is to take the matter before the commission. Unfortunately, or probably fortunately, I was not a member of parliament in time to take this matter up when the railway committee was meeting. Had I done so, I believe that they would have left it to -the discretion of the minister to place a proper rate on auto trucks.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason for the discrepancy between the two sets of rates is that a subsidy is paid on the Woods ferry, and in the payment of the subsidy it is set out what the rates shall be.
. Mr. McLURE: At the same time we are paying a subsidy to the Canadian National here, according to this vote, or $721,000.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: We pay $713,000 of a
deficit.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well, that is a subsidy to it for carrying on the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. .
Special deficits-National harbours board-
[DOT]422. To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1945, in the operation of Churchill harbour, $90,000.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister would be agreeable to answering certain questions in connection with the grain elevator at Churchill in the railways and shipping committee, I would defer them until then. I want to inquire about the amount of depreciation, the capital involved and the interest charged as set out there, but we can go into it better, I think, in the railways and shipping committee if that is agreeable to the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I would prefer that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Bracken: Did I understand that there might be a brief discussion later of item 422?


Lionel Chevrier: No; that has been passed.


John Bracken: A question was raised in connection with No. 422 and the railways and shipping committee.


The CHAIRMAN:: No; item 422 was
carried.


John Bracken: The question I wanted to ask was with respect to the harbour at Churchill.


Lionel Chevrier: I understood from the hon. member for Rosedale that he asked if I would prefer to have the discussion before the railways and shipping committee next session. I agreed, and I think the committee did, but if the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question on the item I shall be glad to answer it if I can.


John Bracken: The question may be
something like the one the hon. member for Rosedale wished to ask. It has not to do directly with the harbour, although I should like to know if the government plans to make any expenditures in connection with that harbour this year or the coming year.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that
question is that the expenditure is set out in these estimates. So far as expenditures
for next year are concerned, they will be in the estimates for 1946-47.


John Bracken: May I ask if the minister will answer this question-


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should answer the question by saying that there is a' sort of a floating vote for the Hudson Bay railway on capital construction, which we passed some days ago, for $20,000. That is used for capital construction.


John Bracken: Well, in a previous item, No. 375, there appears an item of $500,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. I do not want to keep the minister more than a minute or two, but probably he can answer my question briefly. I should like to know what is the net deficit on that railway. This figure may or may not be the net deficit. This figure probably does not include interest on the investment; it may or may not provide for depreciation. Would the minister let us know what is the real net loss per year in the operation of that railway?


Lionel Chevrier: The real net estimated deficit, is $500,000. The actual deficit will be a little less than that, because, now that we have reached the month of December, it is possible to know with greater certainty. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what the amount will be, but it will be less than the estimated amount.


John Bracken: But does that include
the interest on the investment? I am afraid it does not.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


John Bracken: Well, then, that is not the actual deficit. Does it also include provision for depreciation, or would that, too, have to be added to the $500,000 in order to show the actual loss per year from that project?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it would have to
be added to the amount. The hon. gentleman remembers the discussion which took place on the motion of the hon. member for Churchill. I tabled a number of statements showing the deficit on capital, the deficit on interest, and I think there was a reference to depreciation.	,


Mr. NICHOLSON:: It is all on Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member says, that it is all on Hansard, and I believe it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
600. Airways and airports-construction and improvements, including lighting and radio facilities-capital-further amount required, $178,900.
Supply-R econstruction
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the
committee whether a policy has yet been decided upon with regard to assistance to municipal airports which are on the feeder lines? For example, there is to be a feeder line running from Vancouver to Penticton, Cranbrook, and then into Lethbridge. There is an airport now at Cranbrook, but I believe they have no hard-surfaced strip, and they have asked the government to give them some assistance in putting down a proper strip. Has any policy been decided upon for assistance of that type?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the air transport board is working on the details of the policy all across the country, but they have not materialized to a sufficient extent to enable them to be made public at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Will any assistance be given to these cities where they show that they are willing to assume their fair share of the cost of improving these airports?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure there will be, because before the war we gave these airports assistance, and while I am not in a position to say what it will be, it will not be less than it was then.


Percy Chapman Black: Is it the policy of the department to utilize the Debert airport in connection with Trans-Canada Air Lines? More than S3 million has been expended on that airport, and often planes con-not make the landing on the eastern passage near Halifax. The service to the central and eastern part of the province is important. Can the minister say whether the airport can be used to a greater extent?


Lionel Chevrier: The airport has not been declared surplus to War Assets Corporation; but when it is, consideration will be given the question whether it can be used for the purpose asked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
S08. Departmental 'administration, including expenses, incidental to organization, $1,500,000.
Lionel Chevrier: There are just one or
two items of the Minister of Reconstruction and the Minister of Munitions and Supply. This item was discussed at full length on the war appropriation estimates, and the. minister said that this amount of $1,500,000 was duplicated in civil estimates as well. There has been ample opportunity therefore for discussion.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am
rather upset by the treatment that the house 
has received from the government. Several of us hadi questions on the order paper asking for specific information, and we were told to defer those questions until the war expenditures committee met. We cooperated' and deferred the questions and, the -war expenditures committee having met, we have not been able to ask the 'questions in committee. I am not blaming either the chairman or the committee; there happened to be too much work to allow us to get down to the details. I do n,ot like the idea of the minister having such unlimited powers without any check on him until the house meets at the next session, when the committee is set up again. I have suggested before that, on this question of war assets and the realization of moneys therefrom, there should be a continuing committee or a royal commission sitting until the house meets again. There are a number of things we want to know, and many things will be happening while the house is in recess. Dominion Magnesium Limited ought to be thoroughly investigated and so should Research Enterprises plant. The Minister of Reconstruction has power to do whatever he likes under the act, and that power is far too great for any minister, no matter how capable or honest he may be. Already he has sold one building and he has told us that he is going to close the plant. There is also the Cardoza matter that has to be investigated1. The government should carefully consider the advisability of setting up the committee I have suggested.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
39. Departmental administration, $526,085.
['There are a number of things in connection with the Department of Reconstruction which require clarification. War Assets Corporation is under this department, and the people of Canada have been inquiring about what is being done with the billions of dollars worth of war assets which now stand to the credit of the Canadian people. The people of Canada gave freely throughout the period of the war in an effort to bring the war to a successful conclusion. There was scarcely a question raised during the whole period of the war about the granting of money. We were in the full flush of\nSupply-Reconstruction', "production when the war ended, and there were many war assets in Europe, in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world.\nAll these are being disposed of through War Assets Corporation, and the Canadian people would like to know what is happening to them. I am of the opinion that the Minister of Finance is anxious that the treasury should be reimbursed as soon as possible for what value is there. The Canadian people consider that these assets belong to them, and they view with considerable alarm one or two aspects in connection with their disposal. In the first place, soldiers coming out of the army find it difficult 'to get the trucks they were driving around during the war. Jeeps and things . like that do not seem to be available at all.\nMany questions were placed on the' order paper with regard to what was happening. They stayed there for weeks, and finally the Minister of Reconstruction asked that they be withdrawn on the promise that they would be answered fully in the committee. We accepted that in good faith and they were [DOT]withdrawn. The committee held about ten meetings of about an hour and a quarter each. That committee undertook to study the set-up and organization of War Assets Corporation. The steering committee agreed on that, which was all to the good. However, it seemed that War Assets Corporation was in a constant state of flux. Policies which were placed on the paper with regard to their organization seemed to show one thing, while actual operations seemed to show another.\nFarmers inquire whether it would be possible for them to get hold of tractors or ;rucks. Provincial governments would like to get hold of road-making machinery and aeroplanes, but they are having considerable difficulty. Hospitals wish to know if it would be possible for them to get hold of hospital supplies. People need things such as blankets and clothing, and there are tools which the government could use. There are thousands of schools in the different provinces which could use radio material, generators and other things in their construction and science classes. These things would be of very little loss to the government if they were turned over to these schools.\nWe were quite anxious that this committee which was carrying on an investigation of this work should continue. As I say, the committee had only ten meetings. A report was tabled in the house, which report stated that the committee would be reorganized at the\n[Mr. Castleden.J\nnext sitting of parliament to carry on its work. Between now and the time at which the committee could be set up will be at least three months. War Assets Corporation is receiving into its funds $10,000,000 a month. The report which stated that the committee would not sit until the next session was a majority report, but there was opposition.\nWe have more to say on this matter than can possibly be said to-night, and since it is close to eleven o'clock I think the committee should rise.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported."]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition asked a question on Thursday last relating to external affairs, and I might give my hon. friend the answer immediately. He inquired whether the government had received an invitation from the United States government to attend an international trade conference. My hon, friend went on to inquire whether, if such an invitation should be received, the government would give favourable consideration to making its delegation to the proposed conference a non-partisan delegation rather than one representing only the government itself.
The position is that the United States government has proposed that the united nations

Supply-External Affairs
organization, once it is established, should take steps to convene a general international conference on trade and employment, if possible by the summer of 1946. The Canadian government has warmly welcomed the initiative which the United States government has taken in this matter and will give its full support in the united nations assembly to the proposal that such a conference be held. In the meantime I can only say that no consideration has yet been given to the composition of the Canadian delegation to such a conference.
I should like to take this opportunity of informing the committee that the government of Canada has accepted an invitation from the government of the United1 States to participate in a preliminary meeting, which will probably be held during the spring, to prepare concrete and concerted measures for the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers, and generally to prepare the way for the successful accomplishment of the general objectives which we hope the united nations conference on trade and employment will be able to realize. I need not emphasize again the importance to Canada of restoring the world trading economy on the fullest and freest basis possible. No country has a greater stake in the attainment and consolidation of these objectives and we must be prepared to take our full part in cooperation with other like-minded nations in this great task.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Prime Minister not making a general statement on this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not a prepared statement. I rather anticipated that a number of questions might be asked which I would seek to answer. In one way or another at different times during the session there have been extensive references to the more important matters of external affairs, and at this stage of the session I have not had an opportunity to prepare a statement of any length.


Howard Charles Green: There are three questions I should like to place before the Prime Minister having to do with the Department of External Affairs. Before doing so, may I say that I consider it very unfortunate that the debate on external affairs should have come on so late in the session. The Prime Minister has been back from his trip to the United Kingdom and the United States for almost a month, and in the best interests of the country as well as of the house it would have been wiser for him to bring on this debate shortly after his return. The Canadian people have not had many opportunities over the last decade to consider foreign affairs. I think it
has been a weakness of this parliament that we have not had enough discussions on these topics, and as a result it has been difficult for public opinion to "crystallize. Then, of course, it is particularly unfortunate because so few members of parliament are here this week. Most of them have gone home, and only a comparative few will have had the privilege of listening to the discussions on external affairs which have token place to-day.
My first question has to do with Canada's position in the key negotiations which take place from time to time. For example, negotiations are now under way in Moscow, and there were similar negotiations in London in the early fall. They are of great importance. They may be settling the peace terms. In any event, there is no doubt that many of the terms will be settled at these conferences, which means that they may involve war oi peace in the future. Canada is very deeplj concerned with these negotiations, not onlj because of the part she has played in the recent war but also because of the part she undoubtedly would have to play in any future war, and more particularly because we are now one of the three trustees of atomic force. That has tremendously increased the responsibility of Canada 'as a nation in external affairs in the last year; I am confident the Prime Minister will agree with that statement. At this time the Canadian people are far more directly involved in the issues that have to be settled between the nations.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the committee that some procedure must be established so that Canada can take an active part in reaching these vital decisions. At the present time we are 'largely confined to complaining about the decisions after they have been reached and to trying to change them, which is a difficult thing to do. Once a decision is reached, it is almost impossible to make any far-reaching changes. The Prime Minister showed that this was Canada's position when he spoke in this house on September 27, referring to his projected visit to Europe. At page 491 of Hansard he said:
In this entire matter the understanding of the Canadian government, ias I have already intimated to the house, is that 'any draft treaty that results from the discussions of the council of foreign ministers will be of a preliminary character and that there will be an opportunity for Canada, as well as for other interested united nations, to express their views at a later stage.
It would be far more satisfactory if some method could be worked out whereby the Canadian house and the Canadian people could have additional knowledge of the facts and of the trends; have the time to consider them, and to hold discussions with the United
Supply-External Affairs

Kingdom and with other nations of the commonwealth, before decisions are reached. I have no doubt that something along that line is being done at the present time, under present practice; but it must go a great deal farther. I believe that Canada could get whatever procedure' she wished; that the United Kingdom and other nations of the commonwealth would follow our lead to a great extent if we suggested a change. So that, I repeat, my first question is for an explanation of Canada's position in respect of negotiations such as those being carried on at this time in Moscow.
My second question has to dio with Canada's policy in the Pacific. I would ask the Prime Minister to explain the attitude of his government toward Pacific affairs. That area has increased greatly in importance. In fact, I think the centre of world activity has now shifted from Europe, certainly to America and perhaps to the Pacific.
During the course of the war against Japan the United1 States did a great deal to open up areas in the Pacific. Russia has expanded and she is now taking an active interest in Manchuria; she is also very active in the northern part of the Pacific. China, of course, is like a giant just awakening from a long sleep. No one can tell what developments there may be on the mainland1 of Asia in the next decade or generation, but it is almost certain that they will be very great.
Then, Australia and New Zealand have developed remarkably during the war. They have taken a most aggressive position in Pacific affairs, and have told the rest of the world in no uncertain language just what they think their part should be in that area. What is Canada's policy on such questions as the allied advisory commission on Japan, which has been set up in Washington? Apparently the Russians wanted to have an allied control commission, functioning not in Washington but right in Tokyo. What position is Canada taking on that suggestion?
Are we in favour of a regional council for the Pacific? Some of the nations have been suggesting that there should be a council for that region, and Canada should take some position on the question. It is, of course, of vital interest to those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope. We should like to know what the Canadian government has in mind about a regional council for the Pacific. There is much to be said for such a council, because there are many problems which are peculiar to the Pacific area.
Then, what is Canada's policy with regard to a united nations trusteeship of the former

Japanese territories in the Pacific area? That, again, is a most important question; and we should like to know whether or not the government believes that such trusteeship should be established'.
My third question has to do with the work of the house itself in connection with external affairs. This year for the first time there was set up an external affairs committee. It is a very good committee, and the members who served on it took their work most seriously. On November 12, when the Prime Minister was away, that committee brought in a report, the last paragraph of which read as follows:
Your committee further recommends that it be empowered to consider matters connected with external affairs and report from time to time any suggestion or recommendation deemed advisable to the House of Commons.
That, of course, was a wide-open recommendation. The committee asked that it be given power to consider anything having to do with external affairs.
A few days later, on November 16, on a motion for concurrence, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) moved in amendment that the words "be now concurred in" at the end of the motion be struck out, and replaced by the following:
That the report be referred back to the said committee and that it have power to reconsider the recommendation expressed in the last paragraph of the report.
In moving that amendment, the Minister of Justice said that he thought the new committee had gone too far and had asked for powers that were much too wide. His suggestion was that they should consider only what was referred to them by the house.
In this matter there is a clear difference of opinion. Perhaps some middle ground can be found. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that the estimates for the Department of External Affairs might very well be referred to the external affairs committee. That is done now in respect of certain items in the Department of Transport which are referred to the special committee on government-owned railways and shipping. If this were done, if these estimates were referred, it would give the committee reasonable scope in the discussion of external affairs, and at the same time would not deprive the house of the right to discuss those estimates subsequently.
This new committee must not be crippled at the outset. There was great hope for it, in the speech of my leader when he proposed that it be set up, in the speech of the Prime Minister when he accepted the proposal, and in the speeches of the leaders of the other parties.

Supply-External Affairs
As I said at the opening of my remarks, matters connected with external affairs have not been, discussed at any great length in the Canadian parliament. However, they have become more and more important, until now there is nothing much more important which could be discussed either in committee or in the house. The standing committee could get at the various facts in connection with the estimates. It could call officials of the department, and could hear witnesses. It could help to keep the Department of External Affairs more closely in touch with the Canadian people. There would be valuable training for the members serving on the committee and the result would be to help the people of Canada to understand and to follow external affairs better than they do at the present time. Further, if my suggestions were followed it might be possible to reach unanimity on many questions connected with external affairs. So that I repeat my suggestion that the government adopt the policy of referring estimates of the department to the standing committee on external affairs at the beginning of the session.
Those are the three questions that I have to place before the Prime Minister to-night. It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of external affairs. Twice in twenty-five years young Canadians have sailed from our shores to fight, and in many cases to die, because of issues that arose beyond our boundaries. They have had to do that in order to prevent war from approaching our land. I believe that if the Canadian people are told the facts, if they are given an opportunity' to discuss and to understand the various issues, they will reach the right decision. But the leadership must come from the house itself. Therefore I suggest that in another session the Prime Minister see to it that more opportunity is given for a thorough examination of all questions having to do with external affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member for Vancouver South that I agree with practically all he has said this evening. Personally I am sorry that it was not possible to have these estimates brought down at an earlier time. I can give him an explanation which, however, he may regard as an excuse. The fact is that when I returned I found there was quite a lot to do. My hon. friend knows that part of the time was taken up with presiding at the dominion-provincial conference and studying questions in relation to it. He knows also that there were a number of very important measures which still had not been considered by the house, or if they had been considered, had
been considered only in one stage, and it was desired by the house to have them debated before anything else was taken up, or at least I so gathered. I met with the leaders of the three parties when I came back and we had a discussion as to how the business of the session should be arranged for the remainder of the session in order that we might get through about this time. In that discussion it was clearly emphasized that there were certain measures-for example, the emergency powers bill, the budget resolutions and other matters-which it was felt it was all-important should be dealt with by the house as soon as possible. I agreed to do all I could to see that those measures were brought forward as rapidly as possible. If I am not mistaken, I undertook to see that estimates which it might be requested should be brought down before others would be given priority. I do not recall any particular request that the estimates of external affairs should precede other estimates. I have been holding back, in part, to allow the business of the house to get along as rapidly as possible. I agree with my hon. friend that it is unfortunate that we should be discussing at this late stage of the session many matters that relate to external affairs.
I agree with my hon. friend that there is perhaps no more important phase of the government's work than that which relates to external affairs. I think he will agree that the importance of external affairs in the work of government has in Canada come to the fore very suddenly. During the period of the war there were strong reasons why we had to follow the course we did in regard to making our voice heard on many questions. I have said to the house that at times we found ourselves in an extremely embarrassing position. Decisions were being made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain associated with the President of the United States. Some of these decisions had to be made very quickly, and in a few instances we did not learn about them until after they had been made. But those cases were very few and there were good reasons for the haste that was required.
I had at that time to make up my mind whether I would protest each time we had been overlooked or whether I would look at the matter in a reasonable light and say, "Everything considered, as we are in a war, we had better allow this to pass without too much in the way of protest." But I can assure my hon. friend that there never was an occasion, while we may not have said much in the way of protest in public, that we did not place our position very strongly on record.
Coming to this present period, now that we are out of the war, I did as my hon. friend has
Supply-External Affairs

read from Hansard make a strong protest before I went across the Atlantic at Canada being invited to come for purposes of consultation on matters related to the settlement of the peace, and not invited to come as a principal,, to sit as such with others. One reason why I felt it important to go to England was to discuss that very phase of the situation with the prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs there. I thought that matters of the kind could be referred to much better in conversation than to be made an occasion for discussion across the Atlantic. I would say that I believe that the members of the British government have had and have every desire to see that Canada secures her full representation in important international negotiations, but to some extent the matter has been beyond their control.
My hon. friend has referred to the meeting of foreign ministers that took place in London. If I remember correctly, that meeting was the outgrowth of the conference held at Potsdam. Similarly, there is a conference taking place at Moscow to-day at which are present only the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union. That conference is the outcome of the decision reached at Yalta that the foreign ministers of the great powers involved in the war should meet every once in so often, I think it is every three or four months, to become-I do not say better acquainted with each other-better acquainted through conferring with one another, with all aspects of questions as they come up.
President Truman himself has said that he does not think there should be any more peace settlements by the great powers alone. In that connection I am sure the President was referring to a peace conference and the final settlement of peace terms. Canada has made her position very clearly known in that connection. In regard to matters that relate to the peace we expect to have all the powers recognize the great part which Canada played in this war, the great sacrifice of life that has been made, all that has contributed to victory on the part of our armed services, to say nothing of the much lesser but nevertheless very important contributions that Canada has made in the way of furnishing supplies, making loans, in fact giving assistance where it was needed without any consideration. We do expect and will expect that this country shall be given full recognition along with other powers that may have to do with these international matters that affect the future.
May I deal with the last subject to which my hon. friend referred before going on to the 
other two questions he asked? I think it would be all to the good to have the estimates of the Department of External Affairs referred to the committee on external affairs. That committee was formerly known as the committee on industrial and international relations, but its designation was changed at the beginning of this session. My impression is that 1 suggested at a previous session that we should refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on industrial and international relations. I know that I did advocate that course in regard to the estimates of different departments, namely,, that they should be referred to committees, and I did so for two reasons; first, in order that all members might be better informed on the work of the government in these matters and also because I believe it would involve a real saving in time in taking up the estimates themselves. I agree with my hon. friend that if the committee does go into these matters and takes up the estimates of any department-I am speaking now particularly of External Affairs-that should1 not preclude the fullest discussion on any of the items for external affairs when the report of the committee comes back to the house. I do think that the committee of supply might well decide that there are a large number of these-items which the standing committee had gone into so fully that there was no need of bringing them up again here and taking up the time of the house, but that it would rather pick out the items which it was felt should receive attention here.
The leader of the opposition also asked whether it was the intention to reappoint the committee on the revision of the rules of the house. I would answer him now by saying that that committee will certainly be reappointed. and I hope that it will consider very carefully how time can be saved in the House of Commons by a revision of the rules in some respects along the lines I have already suggested. The recommendation of the committee to which my hon. friend referred was that it be empowered to consider matters connected with external affairs and to report from time to time any suggestions or recommendations to the House of Commons. I think that was construed as being something very broadi and as rather a departure from the rules we follow generally in the house; namely, that when matters are referred to committees, they are referred to them specifically. For example, this committee on external affairs in its report referred to certain conventions they approved, and there were also the treaty of extradition and

Supply-External Affairs
one or two other matters which they considered. I think that is the right way in which to refer matters to a committee.
But with regard to External Affairs there is one very special reason why care must be taken as to the extent to which the committee might be authorized to go in investigating External Affairs generally. My hon. friend knows that in the Department of External Affairs there is a great deal of correspondence with different governments on matters that are under consideration and one thing above everything else that we have to watch is to see that where other governments are concerned their consent is obtained in advance of the disclosure of information that may be the subject of communication between those governments and our own. The committee might quite unconsciously, unless there was someone watching the situation pretty carefully, be going into some matters about which, if they were brought up in the House of Commons instead of in the committee the minister in charge would have to take responsibility. But I do not press that consideration too far. I think that what my hon. friend has in mind is that if the estimates as a whole were referred to a committee it could bring before it the officials of the External Affairs Department and if they had doubt as to the propriety to certain matters arising in the committee the matter could be considered and dealt with by the minister in the house. I am happy to join with my hon. friend in the move to have the estimates of External Affairs referred to the standing committee and I would hope that that committee might, as I have already suggested, bring down to a few topics the matters which subsequently need to be referred to in the House of Commons. Possibly later, when we call this particular resolution, and the amendment which has been proposed to refer the matter back for consideration the amendment might be allowed to pass as the committee will not be meeting again before another session.
My hon. friend asked me about Canada's position in certain key negotiations. I have touched on that to a limited extent. I cannot emphasize too strongly the right of this country to be one of the principals in any matters that have grown out of the war and relate to the making of the peace. I can assure him that we shall watch the situation carefully and press for our rights in that regard. 1
My hon. friend has made reference to Canada's policy in the Pacific. I had anticipated
that some questions would be asked in regard to the Pacific and I should like to answer his question as follows:
I should like to summarize briefly the situation with respect to the occupation and control of Japan. It will be recalled that, in October, Canada was invited to participate in the work of the far eastern advisory commission, a body convened in Washington to consider political matters connected with the fulfilment by Japan of its obligations under the instrument of surrender. The invitation was accepted, as the house was informed, and the Canadian ambassador in Washington was named as Canadian representative. A number of preliminary meetings have been held which have been chiefly devoted to examining the manifold problems with which the committee will have to deal and discussing the way in which its work can most profitably be arranged. The members taking part in these meetings, in addition to Canada, are the United Kingdom, the United States, China, Australia, France, India, the Philippine commonwealth, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
So far, the Soviet Union has not sent a representative to the commission, but it is my understanding that discussions are now proceeding between the four powers signatory to the Potsdam declaration -with a view to reconciling certain differences of opinion which have been expressed over methods of procedure. It is hoped that these discussions will result in the attendance of a Soviet representative, which will be genuinely welcomed by all.
It is premature as yet to attempt to predict, with any exactness, how the far eastern advisory commission will function and what role it will play. The important thing is that machinery has been created which will provide for joint discussions by all the nations directly concerned with the Pacific' of the intricate and far-reaching political problems occasioned by the defeat of Japan. An opportunity is thus afforded to the Canadian government to express its views on matters of concern to it and to share in the formulation of the policies that will be applied to Japan. I am hopeful that the far eastern advisory commission will make a worth-while contribution to the problem of creating conditions which will encourage the development by the Japanese people of a peaceful and democratic government.
Canada will be represented on the far eastern advisory commission during its forthcoming visit to Japan by Mr. E. H. Norman, a member of the external affairs service. Mr. Norman served at the Canadian legation in
Supply-External Affairs

Japan before the war and is a specialist in far eastern affairs. He will act in place of Mr. L. B. Pearson, the official Canadian representative on the commission, who will not be able to leave his post 'as Canadian ambassador in Washington for the time required for this visit to Japan.
Colonel L. M. Cosgrove of the trade commissioner service, has been appointed as economic consultant to the Canadian representative. Colonel Cosgrave served for many years as a trade commissioner in the far east, and has more recently been military attache at Canberra.
May I say a word with respect to China. The sense of relief experienced by all the united nations with the final surrender of Japan was surely nowhere felt more profoundly than in long-suffering China. To that great country it brought not only release from over eight years of war-indeed from fourteen years of continuous resistance-but a removal of the shadow of Japanese domination that had marked many more years of uncertainty and fear. We may well recall at this time the debt of gratitude the world owes to China for her resistance in those early days when she was willing to withstand the might of Japan. By a happy coincidence, on the very day when Japan signed the formal surrender terms in Tokyo bay, the Premier of China was the guest of our government, and as Prime Minister I was able to express to Dr. Soong Canada's congratulations and thanks, and to assure him of Canada's continued aid as China addressed herself to her tasks of reconstruction.
Canada with the other united nations looks with expectation and hope to China as she takes up her task of economic reconstruction and political development. Her leaders are fully aware that the task will not be without difficulties. News of recent days indicate a political condition yet unsettled and disturbed. At' this stage we can only affirm our confidence that the Chinese people will be able satisfactorily to solve their owm internal (problems. Good neighbours and far-off friends alike must be united in the hope that she may be completely successful in attaining the unity and strength that will enable her to take her place as a bulwark among the peace-loving and democratic nations of the world.
My hon. friend asks specifically with regard to the regional council in the Pacific. The government's policy has been to keep in touch with all these matters that relate to the Pacific as they have come up for consideration, but we have not thus far decided that it is advisable for us to become members of a regional council. It may be that the develop-

ments which will take place within the next short time will show the wisdom of Canada being a member of the regional council, but I think we have much to gain and nothing to lose by not taking too immediate a step in regard to what is most advisable in the intricate situation which exists at the present time in the Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: I also asked the Prime
Minister the attitude of the government toward a united nations trusteeship of Japanese possessions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is really nothing I can say at the present time about it, apd it is felt that it would be unwise to make any particular statement on that subject at the present time.


Angus MacInnis: I have a few remarks to
make on a specific point and, .perhaps, a few questions to ask to which, I think, a great many people in Canada would like to get fairly specific answers from the Prime Minister. Before I do that, however, I wish to associate myself with the points made by the hon. member for Vancouver South in regard to the unsatisfactory condition in which we find ourselves with this Department of External Affairs; indeed, it applies also to a great many other departments. We have to go back to our homes without having an opportunity of getting information on many points which we would like to have clarified. Perhaps, however, the blame for this state of affairs does not rest with the government alone. It rests with the government for having failed to take the initiative in arranging the business of this house so that we can deal with matters with more satisfaction and more dispatch; but in my opinion, it must have the support of the opposition side of the house. I hope that when another session comes around, one of the first things we shall do will be so to arrange the work of the house that we shall deal more with practical matters rather than make speeches which in the end do not amount to anything anyway.
The Prime Minister said in another debate the other day that external affairs were of tremendous importance, that almost every subject we discussed to-day touches our affairs with other countries. I agree. May I say here that I was extremely glad when the Prime Minister found time earlier in the session- perhaps he did not find time; he just took it-to go to Great Britain and acquaint himself with many things at first hand. We criticize him, and we are going to continue to do so, but I admit that I felt somewhat relieved .when he took that trip, because I

Supply-External Affairs
considered at that time that international conditions were as bad as they could be without an eruption, and I believe to-day they are somewhat better. I hope that either the Prime Minister or whoever is in charge of external affairs *will find time in the future to visit other countries with which we have intimate international relations.
What I wish to touch on more specifically is a matter which was discussed in the session of 1944 under the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I do not see any item concerning it in the estimates before me; but since this point was discussed and the Prime Minister made a very full statement on it at that time, I am going to bring it up to-night. I refer to the position of our citizens of Japanese origin. Their position has not been satisfactory to them and certainly not satisfactory, I think, to other Canadians, and now that we have come to the stage where the war is over, there must be some final solution in this important matter.
I am sure the Prime Minister has received communications from many organizations across Canada, organizations which are waiting to hear what he has to say on this subject. Had there been more time, I would have quoted at length from the Prime Minister's speech of August 4, 1944, with which in large measure I agree. The fault which I find with it is that that policy, in my opinion, has not been carried out. I will content myself with reading from part of the paragraph which appears on page 5916 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said:
Those who are disloyal must be removed. That is clear. Surely however it is not to be expected that the government will do yther than deal justly with those who are guilty of no crime, or even of any ill intention. For the government to act otherwise would ibe an acceptance of the standards of our enemies and the negation of the purposes for which we are fighting.
I agree with that whole-heartedly; it expresses my point of view absolutely. But I maintain that we have not dealt justly with these people, and it is for that reason that I wish the Prime Minister to-night, if he can, to give an assurance not only to these people themselves but to the people of Canada that democratic principles and the principles of freedom will be observed in our treatment of them. I should like to know if those who signed for repatriation and now wish to reconsider their signatures-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not see anything in the estimates with regard to this matter. In fact it is my recollection that it was discussed previously in this committee under a different department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I recollect, Mr. Chairman, that there was an understanding that, if we took up these estimates rather hurriedly at the end, considerable latitude would be allowed, and I should hope that this question would be one which we might permit to be discussed. Your ruling is strictly correct as to the particular item, but the understanding was that we would allow considerable latitude. That was the general agreement, and possibly the discussion can be continued.


William Ross Macdonald: If that is the wish of the committee the hon. member may proceed.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to thank the Prime Minister. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I drew your attention to the fact, when I began to speak, that there was not an item in these estimates under which I might speak. I was going to raise a few points on which I believe the people of Canada would like to have some assurance. First, will those who signed for repatriation and now want to reconsider be given that opportunity? Second, will children under sixteen years of age who are Canadian citizens and who are taken to Japan by their parents have their citizenship rights safeguarded? There is another question. When will the restrictions on the freedom of movement of these people be removed so that they can again take up their lives as free citizens of a free country? On these particular points I should like the Prime Minister to reply if he will.
There is another matter, and I refer to it particularly for the leader of this group, who is not able to be here to-night. It arises out of an item that appeared in a Vancouver newspaper on May 31, 1945. It was a statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) during the election campaign, and it refers to high-ranking members of the Department of External Affairs, who are not named. I quote:
Tom Reid, Liberal candidate for New Westminster. took issue with Prime Minister Mackenzie King on the Japanese question here Wednesday when he charged:
"Prime Minister Mackenzie King is advised by men who had fine trips to Japan and were bribed by the Japanese previous to the war."
Declaring his policy regarding the Japanese question differed from that of Mr. King, he said:	,	.
"These higher up civil servants are putting in a plug for the Japanese on every occasion. When he was asked in the house to name an individual who had been bribed by the Japanese, he refused, but said he would write the name in a letter and send it to Mr. King; He did this and was later summoned to an interview attended by Mr. King and Norman Robertson, Assistant Secretary for External Affairs."
Supply-External Affairs

The interview was brief, Mr. Reid said. Mr. King asked Mr. Robertson if the individual named in the letter denied the charge. Mr. Robertson made no reply and the interview was over. Mr. Reid declared his only mistake was in failing to mention two others in the same * category.
These are . serious charges. The people concerned, although no names were mentioned, feel that they were the ones in question, and if this statement is true, then these people have no business in the Department of External Affairs. They have no business in the service of the Dominion of Canada, and the Prime Minister should remove them from their positions at the earliest possible opportunity. If, however, the statement is not true, then the character of these people should be cleared, and it should be done publicly. I suggest that this is a matter that the Prime Minister cannot leave as it is now. He cannot do so in fairness either to the people of Canada or to the gentlemen concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
found it difficult to get the purport of order in council P.C. 7356. As I understand it- and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong-there are two groups of Canadian citizens: those who applied for the revocation of their applications to go to Japan before September 2 and those who did not, who were in the great majority. Can this latter group have the right to appeal to the quasi-judicial commission which is being set up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me repeat what I said about the second order in council. It provides for the removal of British and Canadian status-I do not whether that is the order to which my hon. friend is referring.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: 



William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. It provides for the removal of British and Canadian
Supply-External Affairs

status from any naturalized persons who now' leave Canada for residence in Japan, or are deported from Canada pursuant to applications made and orders issued under P.C. 7355. Naturally we do not wish to have in Japan, in the person of anyone who was deported, a person still carrying the status of a Canadian citizen; I think we will all agree that should not be permitted. This order, however, has no application to Japanese nationals, nor does it apply to persons born in Canada. Its application is only to persons naturalized in Canada who have expressed a wish to go to Japan and - who have not, as I have said, revoked this application before September 1, 1945; and also to naturalized persons who come under the third order which I have already quoted.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: For one reason or another a great number of Canadian citizens did not revoke their applications before September 2. Does that mean that automatically they will be deported, or do they have a right to appeal to some body?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word, in view of the fact that I had something to do with the preparation of some of these orders. . These orders purport to deal only with those who have asked to be deported, whether they be Canadian bom or naturalized in Canada or Japanese nationals. With respect to those bom in Canada who may not want to go at the time we can arrange to have them go, no decision has yet been made, because there was nothing in the statutory legislation which permitted of their being dealt with. The only ones who are to be forcibly dealt with under these orders are the naturalized Canadians of the Japanese race, or Japanese nationals. These orders do not purport to deal with Canadian-born persons of Japanese ancestry who had expressed a willingness to go, and who had revoked before September 1, nor with those who had expressed a desire to go, and had not revoked before September 1.
It was found upon examining the Immigration Act and the Naturalization Act that if anything was to be done about them, further legislation would be required; and it was not felt that it would be proper for the governor in council to enact that legislation under the War Measures Act or under the Emergency Powers Act, but that if and when it is done, it should be done by parliament itself.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to pursue this matter further. I am dealing only with Canadian citizens who are naturalized. Those who did not apply to revoke before September 2 are to be deported?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In other words, there will be a distinction between Canadian-bom citizens, and Canadian citizens who.took out papers in this country?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I think that is wrong; it is unjust.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Apparently parliapient did not think so when it passed the legislation now on the statute books.


John Lambert Gibson: Would the Prime Minister give the committee the assurance that no persons of Japanese ancestry will be allowed at any time to return to the Pacific coast?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I can give that statement.


Howard Charles Green: What is the Prime Minister's answer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member wish me to give a statement that persons of Japanese origin will not be permitted to return to the Pacific coast? I cannot give that statement.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Chairman, I know the committee is eager to complete its business; yet as a new member I believe I have had as little to say as anyone. I have tried to be a good listener, and I have been gaining impressions every day so that a little later on I would be able to have a clear idea as to what really constitutes our Canadian parliament.
When this matter was being discussed under the estimates for the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour made two statements which caught my attention. If I understood him correctly, he said, first, that this is no time for sitting on a fence. I understood him to mean that this is the time when people should take a stand on matters of vital interest.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the hon. member has the dates wrong. I said that when a nation is in jeopardy is no time to sit on the fence-when you have your back to the wall, and when you are hanging on the ropes as we were when we stood alone in 1940 and 1941. That was the time I referred to; but not now. It is easy to sit on the fence now.


James Herbert Matthews: I
stand corrected.


William Ross Macdonald: I was afraid there would be reference to a previous debate, and that- was why I mentioned to the hon. member for Van-

Supply-External Affairs
couver East that I had seen no estimate in the Department of External Affairs with respect to Japanese. I was fearful there would be a review of this question and a reference to a debate which took place in the house a few weeks ago. Since it has been agreed that there will be some discussion on the Japanese question, I suggest that there should be as little reference as possible to the debate which has already-taken place on this subject.


James Herbert Matthews: I am asking only for the latitude granted at the request of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Vancouver East.


William Ross Macdonald: I am not trying to
circumscribe the hon. member in what he has to say. However, I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver East referred to an earlier debate. If he did, it was only to a limited extent. I would ask hon. members not to revive the debates which have already taken place.


James Herbert Matthews: To the best of my ability I shall keep within those limits.
It seems to me that as a member from British Columbia I should express my views, because I know I hold a view which is shared by a great many people in my province. The impression has gone out that practically all , the people of British Columbia are desirous of the deportation of these Japanese. That is not true, because I hold in my hand clippings from the Vancouver Sun, which is looked upon as a good Liberal paper. In one of these clippings I notice that the members of the Student Christian Movement, from the campus of the university of British Columbia, urge Ottawa to refrain, from sending to Japan those Japanese-Canadians who signed up for return but now wish to remain in Canada. The article goes on to say:
We urge that the government give due consideration to the conditions of perplexity and despair under which many Japanese-Canadians expressed the wish to be sent to Japan.
And here is another extract :
Six interior locals of the International Woodworkers of America petitioned Ottawa following a week-end meeting in Kamloops. The union thus goes on record as being the first major organization to demand that Japs be allowed to return here permanently, now that the war is over, and enjoy the franchise.
Harold Pritchett, president of the B.C. district, IWA, said his union has many Japanese members in the interior.
The IWA is of the opinion selective service should establish an appeal board to which loyal Japs would have recourse if they want to stay west of the Cascades.
At present Japanese face deportation to other parts of Canada if they choose to remain in this country.
I should like to make myself quite clear that I hold no brief for the Japanese in Japan, not even for their god-emperor Hirohito.
I believe that war criminals must be punished, in whatever country they may be found. But I have great love for justice, and all that I would ask hon. members to keep in mind is that justice should be done.
I came to Canada forty years ago, in the spring of 1905. One of the things that influenced me in choosing Canada as my future home was the fact that it was under the union jack, a flag that has always stood for justice. Hon. members in the debate on the flag spoke strongly and pleaded that nothing should be done now that would jeopardize national unity. Yet I feel that if this question of the Japanese is not handled very wisely it will have a definite effect on empire unity in the days ahead.
I believe that in the past Canada has not acted clearly or wisely so far as racial minorities are concerned. I believe it was in 1914 when we had in Canada what was known as the Komagato Maru question. A Japanese vessel of that name came into Burrard inlet loaded with Hindu men and women seeking entry into Canada. They were refused admission, and the vessel sailed back with that load of people. Remember, these were men and women migrating from one part of the British empire to another. They came to Canada from a country under $ie union jack. Then sometimes we wonder why to-day India is so antagonistic to the British empire.
Speaking of racial prejudice, we have had1 a lot of that in British Columbia. I know that for some years, coloured people were refused admission to the Crystal swimming pool in the city of Vancouver, but I am glad to see in the issue of the Vancouver Sun of November 8 that the Vancouver parks board; have decided to lift the colour ban. That is all to the good1, but what is not so good is the fact that the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Friday, November 15, tells of the colour ban being applied in Toronto "the good". Let me read this article:
A Toronto negro, tears in his eyes, told the city board of control to-day that his fifteen-year old son .had -been refused admission to an- ice rink in North Toronto. The negro, Harry Ga-rrey, concluded with an apology for "taking up your valuable time."
"I don't know -that we have any work more important than trying to overcome things like this," Mayor Robert Saunders -told Garrey. "We assure you -this matter will be investigated." The control board was told by Alderman Norman Freed that young Garrey and five of
Supply-External Affairs

his white school friends purchased entrance tickets at the rink and when tiling through the turnstile to the ice surface the negro lad was told iby the manager: "Sorry, no coloured boys allowed here." The other five refused to enter and left the rink with young Garrcy.
I know that the situation has now changed considerably with regard to the Japanese people. As a member from British Columbia I have always resented the Tact that this question has been allowed to become a provincial one. It should always have been considered as a matter to be decided by the federal authorities. I personally have accepted the Prime Minister's statement of August 4, 1944, as a statesmanlike solution of this problem. I agree with him that not another Japanese should be allowed to come into: Canada. I agree with him that those who are in, Canada and who are to be allowed to remain should come before a quasi-judicial board so that their loyalty may be proved, and that those who remain in Canada should be distributed among the various provinces of this dominion. I submit that British Columbia should be willing to take her share of these people, but the other provinces should also stand their share of this particular burden. Oftentimes the impression is left that none of these people are any good. I should like to read a letter from a soldier which appeared under the date line of Esquimalt, British Columbia: It reads:
Lance-Corporal Stewart Ganton of Prince George, who arrived here with other repatriates from Hong Kong, declared that "there was a good Jap in Hong Kong-and he came from Vancouver."


Thomas Reid: May I ask the hon. member what newspaper he is reading from?


James Herbert Matthews: The
New Canadian.
The report stated that Ganton, who was in auxiliary hospital when Hong Kong fell, said .the man was formerly of Vancouver who had worked in a city lumber mill.
"He served as interpreter. He liked Canada and apparently had been given what he thought was good treatment over here. So he tried to do the same for us, such as giving us cigarettes," he said.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending a meeting in a church here in Ottawa and listening to Captain U. Laite, a chaplain of the United church who had been released from Hong Kong, recounting some of his experiences in that captured city. He spoke most kindly of some of the Christian Japanese and related their kindnesses to himself and other prisoners in their care. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Fort William said that this is a great time for some forgiving. I would reiterate that statement and [Mr. J. H. Matthews.l
repeat that it is a great time for some forgiving. Punish the criminals in Japan, By all means. They have asked for it; they must take it and like it. Punish the criminals in, Europe also for that matter, but do not let us punish innocent and helpless people here in Canada and then call it an expression of patriotism. Just before Nurse Cavell faced the firing squad during the first great war for her work in assisting British prisoners to escape, she is reported to'have said, "Patriotism is not enough." There is a feeling that goes deeper than patriotism, and I believe that we here in Canada should ti-y to follow the greatest of Christian principles:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.
During a previous debate the hon, member for New Westminster asked if we would be willing to allow the soldiers who had been released from Hong Kong to settle this matter of the Japanese. To that question I would say, "no." We in, Canada have never been willing to allow any section of the people to settle our national problems. I believe that is a matter for the parliament of Canada to settle and not the soldiers alone. When we start looking back over what happened at Hong Kong we realize that there are two sides. I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun entitled, "The Blackest Page." It reads:
"We were shipped into a trap. It was a mess."
In fewest words, Private Harry Gyselman, of Winnipeg, summarizes the 1941 Hong Kong fiasco. Lack of equipment ,an<i too little oi everything, men and munitions, spelled defeat even before the arrival of the ill-fated expedition.
The fact that the Japanese would probably have won anyway does not excuse our failure. Why the Canadian high command handled the situation so badly has never been explained.
It will be remembered that the men were here in Vancouver ready to sail, but their heavier equipment was still on, its way from eastern Canada, stranded in half a dozen places. There were empty holds in the troopship. General Alexander-


William Ross Macdonald: I must inform the hon. member that this has nothing to do with the estimate under discussion,


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay West):: It was stated previously that the soldiers should be allowed to settle this matter of the Japanese. I would ask to be allowed to finish this and then I am through.


William Ross Macdonald: The discussion must be confined to the estimate before the committee.


James Ewen Matthews: Then I can only say that it is the truth that hurts.

Supply-External Affairs


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member who has just taken his seat has made a reference which might be misinterpreted and misconstrued and do a great deal of 'harm if it were not corrected. During the course of his . remarks 'he has referred to the treatment given by Canada to British subjects from other parts of the empire. He referred to the Komagato Maru which arrived off the coast of British Columbia in 1914 with a large number of the subjects of India aboard and which was sent back to India without its passengers being permitted to land. It was sent back to India without these persons being permitted to land.
Mjr hon. friend has left the impression that Canada was not treating honourably and properly subjects from another part of the British empire. May -1 say to him that I used to know a good deal about matters of the kind because at one time I investigated under royal commission in the province of British Columbia the whole question of immigration from the orient, and subsequently I was sent by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to see Lord Morley in London when he was Secretary of State for India to seek to arrange with 'him a plan that would avoid anything that could look like discrimination so far as these British subjects of India are concerned. 'Later I went to India and dealt with this matter with the government of India, and the government of India took the position that Indians under their own law should not be permitted to be taken under indenture to other parts of the British empire-the question came up first in relation to South Africa-and there be exploited by contractors who were responsible for bringing them to other parts of the empire.
In order to keep persons from coming here who were going to become public charges, our law required that anyone who had not a contract of employment or someone responsible for him should have in his possession the sum of at least two hundred dollars, I think it was. None of these men aboard that ship would have been eligible to enter Canada under our Immigration Act, and to the extent they were under indenture, they would be coming to Canada in violation of the laws of India. -Par from there being any effort on Canada's part to discriminate against people from another part of the Brtish empire there was an effort on Canada's part to see that the laws both of Canada and of India were observed in a manner which would avoid conflicts of that kind.
May I say that the arrangements made at that time, as long ago as 1908 or 1909 have
stood from that day to this, and have helped to lessen what otherwise might have raised a very serious difficulty in our relations with the great empire of India.


James Herbert Matthews: Was as much publicity given to the solution of that difficulty at that particular time as has been given to this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that if my hon. friend had been following matters as closely at that time as he is to-day he would have seen that full publicity was given to it. May I say that I made a report for the government of the day on the whole question of immigration from India. The report exists and is on the files of the Department of Labour and will be found in the sessional papers in the library of parliament. If my hon. friend looks at it he will find that the report covers the very points mentioned to-night. The report was tabled in this House of Commons at that time, and received much publicity at the time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for holding up the committee at this stage on a matter of fundamental importance to democracy. I want to be absolutely clear in my own mind that I am right before I proceed. The matter has been explained to me, and I think I grasped the gist of it, and I am going to speak on it now. I have no argument against P.C. 7355 or against P.C. 7357; my argument is against P.C. 7356. I do not know why it was brought down so late in the session. The Prime Minister and the committee know that the matter of Japanese Canadians has been exciting interest all over this country, and to bring it down on almost the last day of the session is not fair to this parliament. As I understand it,, every Canadian citizen of Japanese descent who did not apply for cancellation of his repatriation request before the 2nd of September of this year is going to be deported. It that right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad that my hon. friend has brought the matter up anew. May I make the situation perfectly clear?
There were certain naturalized Japanese who, when Japan was doing its Utmost to destroy the British empire asked to be returned to Japan. When we were fighting Japan these naturalized Japanese wanted to go back to the enemy country. What the government said was that any man who in time of war wished to go back to the enemy must have believed pretty strongly at the time that the enemy was going to win and wanted to be with
Supply-External Affairs

them; he was more anxious to be with them than to remain here in Canada. The government's position is this, that anyone who has shown that spirit and that sort of attitude deserves to have his naturalization revoked, and these people are having their naturalization revoked for that reason.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am sorry I disagree with the Prime Minister. He assumes, as did the Minister of Labour and others, that because the signers of these repatriation requests put their names to these forms, they were all disloyal. That is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow because, despite statements made to the effect that coercion was not used, I say coercion was used.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me state-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Wait until I have finished. Coercion is not a matter of sticks or bludgeons or clubs.


Lionel Chevrier: You are using sticks and bludgeons now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say without equivocation-


Thomas Reid: Say it strongly, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am an old country man like my hon. friend, and proud of it, and I know something of the traditions of our people. To say that coercion was used is not a statement of fact, and I say that with all the emphasis of which I am capable. As a matter of fact, the whole thing was looked ' over by the International Red Cross, which vindicated the position that the Canadian government took. I do not know of any better agency than that. What I get a. little tired of is some people trotting out their consciences like a lavaliere worn around a woman's neck.
I do not take second place to my hon. friend or anybody else in acting decently toward other people, irrespective of their race or colour or creed. May I say this to my hon. friend-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If you are asking a question, all right. If you are making a speech, I have the floor.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, I am just about fed up with-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You will be more fed up after I am through with you.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me put it clearly to my hon. friend as I did to the hon. member for Kootenay East. When a nation has its back to the wall-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. gentleman asking a question or not?


William Ross Macdonald: I understood that he was to put a question, but if the hon. member for Winnipeg North does not desire a question to be put, he has the floor.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am willing to have a question asked, but not to have the minister make a speech in the midst of mine.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have here the Winnipeg Free Press, which is not notoriously unsympathetic to this government, and on the 19th of September of this year it had an editorial headed "We will regret Racialism". The editorial says in part:
A government spokesman has said that if it can be shown that a Japanese Canadian refuses to move out of British Columbia this may be counted against him.
What is that but mental coercion? There is more than one kind of coercion, I should like the hon. gentleman to understand.
We have had several policies in this matter in the last few years, two or three of them deplorable. We had the policy of the Prime Minister of the 4th of August last year; we had the policy of the Minister of Veterans Affairs last September, which was iniquitous; we had the policy of the Minister of Labour some time ago; and now we have certain amendments made by the Prime Minister to that policy to-night. I assume that the orders in council tabled fit in pretty well with a statement which was in the Ottawa Citizen ' of November 24, in a story by Mr. H. R Hardy that Arthur MacNamara, deputy minister of labour, stated the previous day that preparations to expatriate ten thousand Japanese were being rushed just as fast as possible. The Prime Minister now comes to the conclusion that these people were enemies of the country, but when he spoke on this matter on August 4 of last year he had to admit that not one of them had committed an act of sabotage against Canada.


John Lambert Gibson: Th?y did not get the chance.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: They had plenty of chances. I should like to know why it is that the Japanese are being singled out, why the same action is not being taken against the Germans and against the Italians.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that if there was a naturalized


Supply-External Affairs
citizen of Canada who had been, a German national and he wanted to go back to join the Germans instead of remaining in Canada,
I for my part would have done all I could to see that his naturalization was revoked.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I doubt very much whether these citizens who signed these forms did so willingly, knowing how far this Liberal government would go.


John Lambert Gibson: Call your evidence.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have quoted the Prime Minister. I think the committee know the speech. These people were coerced.


Humphrey Mitchell: They backed the wrong horse; that is all.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
quoted the Winnipeg Free Press, and if the government has any greater friend I should like to know who it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will make it perfectly clear that we are talking about naturalized persons, men who were accorded by this country the privilege of being naturalized, and while the war was on signed a document to the effect that they wished to go back to Japan, which was fighting this country at that time. I say that is prima facie evidence that their naturalization should be revoked.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Were naturalized! Germans and Italians asked to sign similar documents? They were not asked to do the same thing at all. I want to remind the Prime Minister of a statement which he made in Winnipeg. He said that any ^ man who lends his voice or his pen to the stirring up of racial and religious strife is an enemy of mankind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I suggest that he has some of those men sitting behind him to-night.


Thomas Reid: Name them.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member for New Westminster is one of the worst.


Thomas Reid: You are raising up hatred of class against class, and you know it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am raising no hatred. I am pointing out what kind of Liberal government-


Thomas Reid: You can't tell me.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I will tell you; I will tell you again.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind all members of the committee that all remarks must be directed to the Chairman. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
should just like to read this statement of policy by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in direct contradiction to the policy of the Prime Minister as it was announced last year. The minister said, on September 19, 1944:
Not a single Japanese from the Rockies to ifche sea.
One can imagine him airing his Highland rhetoric, as he goes on-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take them into Manitoba, if you want them. _


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The
minister said:
I ask my fellow-citizens of Vancouver Centre, and of British Columbia as a whole, to range themselves beside me on this issue and to serve notice of the rest of Canada that we will not have J-apanese in this fair province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What an example of racial intolerance from a Liberal 1


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You speak for your
province; I am speaking for mine.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am
telling the minister what I think of him, and it is not very much. I should like to mention this, too. We have been told on more than one occasion that we follow the traditions of Westminster, not always closely, not always exactly the same traditions, but by and large we do; and there is a tradition there about cabinet solidarity. The theory is this, that in a cabinet, where a minority disagrees with a majority, they accept the verdict of that majority, or they are in honour bound to resign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
true.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: On
the other hand, where a cabinet minister' goes out and makes a declaration of policy, unless it is denied, that is the policy of the cabinet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did my hon. friend get the idea that a majority of the cabinet necessarily control?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the Book of Job.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How
does this government control, except by a

Supply-External Affairs

majority? That is bow it is in control here. I say this, that the policy that is to be carried out as regards these Japanese Canadians is certainly not Liberal.


John Lambert Gibson: It is
generous.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What I would call a Liberal policy would be to have all those who signed their names given an opportunity to Tevoke their signatures. Where there are those who want to go back to Japan, by all means send them back; where there are those who are proven enemies of Canada, by all means send them back. But every Canadian citizen, be he black, white, or yellow, Catholic or Protestant, believer or unbeliever, should have exactly the same opportunity in this country. To-day we are singling out one particular group as objects of our hatred.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is playing both
ends against the middle.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The
democratic principles which the Liberal government are supposed to hold are being shamefully violated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon.
friend that I fought an election on that issue and I am here on this side, to the right of the Speaker.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The
hon. member may be here, but that reflects no credit on his constituents.
All I want to say is that I regard this policy as a direct negation of Liberalism and of decent, elemental, fundamental democracy. I will go farther and say this, that in carrying through this policy, in deporting these Canadian citizens of Japanese origin, the Liberal government has merely proven itself to be what many of us have long suspected, an organized hypocrisy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A government Which
is in office and: in power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask that that term be withdrawn. No hon. member has any right to say that any other hon. member or any government is an organized hypocrisy. Those are words Which must be withdrawn.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I will withdraw the words if I am out of order. I should have said, the Liberal party.


Humphrey Mitchell: Statements of that kind are *11 right on a soapbox, but you cannot make them here.


Mr. HACKETT:: I ask the Prime Minister if, in the negotiation of the extradition treaty

to which he made reference earlier in the evening, full recourse was had to the information and guidance of the department over which he presides.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it would be correct to say that it was, yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say for what reason the treaty was kept a secret or kept away from parliament for three years?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot give my hon. friend the exact reason, but I have had enough experience in watching some of these international negotiations not to be surprised that it took three years. It might have taken four or five. I think the subject itself has been such a complicated one that there has been some delay.


John Thomas Hackett: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The agreement itself was signed by the high contracting parties on the 29th of April, 1942, and my query is, why was it kept away from parliament during the period which elapsed between the 29th April, 1942 and October, 1945?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot givt my hon. friend an answer. I am informed that it was modified once by a protocol. That is all I can say about the-


John Thomas Hackett: It was modified on the 3rd of October of this year. But it would have interfered with so many national undertakings, and with some enterprises in my own constituency, that I have been prompted to be unduly curious about it. I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister that the treaty appears to have been dealt with most expeditiously in the United States. It was signed on April 29, 1942; on May 6, 1942, it was sent by the President to the senate of the United States, the committee on foreign relations dealt with it and made a report in the month of May, 1942. It appears to have been ratified by the senate within a few weeks after it was executed. I am prompted to inquire why Canada delayed in dealing with it. There was nothing in the treaty to be concealed because of the war in which we were engaged. After having seen it, I can understand why there may have been some hesitancy in introducing it into parliament, but I should like to know if there is some high reason for having held it in abeyance away from parliament for such a length of time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend's curiosity, although I cannot agree with all he has said. He said that the

Supply-External Affairs
treaty had interfered with the operations of firms in his constituency. It cannot have interfered yet, and it will not interfere with anything done in Canada until it becomes effective, and it will not become effective until instruments of ratification have been exchanged between the high contracting parties. But as to the reason for not bringing it to parliament before this year, the fact is that the protocol had not been arranged before this year. The treaty became public and became the subject of objections as soon as it was signed, and those objections were for a very long time under discussion. It was not until October of this year that the protocol was arranged to restrict its application when it did become effective; and after that protocol had been arranged, both the treaty and the protocol were brought to the houses of parliament for their consideration before the government would undertake to exchange instruments of ratification. When it was brought to this house it was referred to the committee on external affairs. Many of the objections that had been urged against the treaty in its original form were repeated against the treaty as modified by the protocol. The committee on external affairs has reported the evidence and has recommended that both the treaty and the protocol be reconsidered. There has not yet been time to give consideration to that recommendation of the committee on external affairs. Until there has been time to give consideration to that recommendation of the committee, and also to the evidence that was adduced, there will certainly not be any exchange of instruments of ratification, and I would be very much surprised if it did not again come before the committee on external affairs before the government undertook to make the exchange of instruments of ratification.


John Thomas Hackett: I wish to tell the minister that if I said that the treaty had interfered with enterprise in my constituency I said something I did not intend to say, and I do not think I did say it. I said that the treaty was in such terms that, were it ratified in the form in which it now stands, it would have that effect. I should like to make this suggestion to the minister. I understood from the Prime Minister that all the resources of the department had been called into play in the negotiation of the treaty. If that be true, may I, with the utmost respect for the department, suggest that they go a little outside- it for inspiration when the document is being redrafted, if it be redrafted, because it is quite evident that those who dealt with the matter were neophytes who had never had anything to do with extradition and were pos-47696-233J
sibly not very much interested in it. I suggest, therefore, that when the matter is taken up afresh, the usual care of the department be exercised in availing itself of all help that can be had to make a treaty which will be in the general interests of Canada.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario) May I ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the basis on which the number and character of our representatives in different foreign countries are determined. I have in my hand a white paper entitled, "Canadian Representatives Abroad", dated October 1, 1945, and it seems to include both diplomatic and trade representatives. On what basis is our representation determined? Is it on the extent of business generally, or perhaps business anticipated, or the nature and importance of our diplomatic relationship with the respective countries? The reason for the question is that I do not find it immediately apparent why our representation as set out in this document is as it is. For instance, we have one representative in India, a trade commissioner; one representative in Luxembourg, a minister; one in Greenland who is a vice consul; four representatives in Peru, all of whom are diplomatic; twelve representatives in France, who are apparently all diplomatic, although one or two are referred to as commercial attaches, none of them being referred to as trade-commissioners; five diplomatic representatives and three trade commissioners in Australia; in Brazil five representatives; diplomatic, and no trade commissioners. In Sweden we have no trade representatives at all, although we have in Norway. It is not immediately apparent on what basis we selected1 these. Some of the results seem surprising, and it is a matter of interest to me, and as a matter of public interest I wonder if the Prime Minister would be good enough to explain the basis on which representation abroad is determined.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A variety of considerations have governed in this matter. As my hon. friend is aware, prior to the war certain legations were opened. Some of them have since become embassies. They were opened in a limited number of countries, but during the war a large number of representatives of other countries came to reside in Canada, and, where opportunity was afforded, the government gave assurances that when the appropriate time came we would reciprocate in the matter of representation. That would account for some of the countries to which representatives have not yet been appointed where they otherwise would have been appointed. In connection with each mission I
Supply-External Affairs

think there has usually been some special reason why that appointment was made at the particular time it was. The government has not found it possible to have missions in all countries. We hope we will have them by degrees, but during the war many who would have been excellent persons to represent Canada in different missions were not available; they were serving overseas, and we have been waiting until the war was over in the hope that out of the numbers who served abroad there would be found good candidates for our diplomatic service. The aim of the government is to have representation in all important countries, but it will take time and we have to deal with these matters as circumstances will permit. Take the case of India, which my hon. friend has mentioned. Tor some time we have been seeking to make an appointment of a high commissioner to India. I think we should have a high commissioner there but it is much better, I am sure my hon. friend will agree, to defer making an appointment until the most suitable person is available.
I agree it is anomalous that in certain of these countries there Should be a larger representation than in others; but as I have said, in many cases representatives have been appointed because of special considerations which it was necessary to take into account at a particular time. With regard to the trade commissioners I may say that in posts where we have diplomatic missions they are listed as commercial attaches. If' my hon. friend would ask questions as to any particular representation I would seek to give him a word of explanation. I would make clear that the problem the Department of External Affairs has faced' in all these matters of representation is one that has been very hard to solve owing to the extreme difficulty of securing a sufficient number of suitable persons during the period of the war. Perhaps my hon. friend will agree with me that the question of -representation is one that might appropriately be discussed by the committee on external affairs. Perhaps the committee could deal with questions of that kind more effectively than they could- be dealt with on the floor of parliament.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Onta-rio):: I do not want to press the matter, but I should like to ask one supplementary question. Let us take France, for example; a.nd this raises the whole question of the relative importance of our diplomatic and trade representation. I noted what the Prime Minister said about the commercial secretaries. In France, as far as I can understand, out of 
twelve people there is only one whose designation suggests that he has anything to do with trade; and- by the way I notice there are two newspaper men. I wonder if the Prime Minister would answer this question. What is our objective in a country like France, for example? What do we aim at in the way of relative strength as between commercial representatives and diplomatic -representatives? I can quite understand that it has not been possible to cover the whole situation, but will the Prime Minister say a word as to what are the relative objectives, because at the moment it would 'appear that the commercial side is away under represented?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the commercial side, as my hon. friend is aware the situation in regard to -trade between France and Canada is sti-ll far from normal at present. As business opportunities develop, we would certainly expect to have a larger commercial representation than we have at the present time.


Mr. JAQUES:: Supply-External Affairs
Confidence in the great powers by the Arab leaders, already shaken by a long chain, of broken promises and pledges finally was lost by the decision of the supreme council at St. Remo in 1920, which placed all the Arab territory between the Mediterranean and Persia under mandate to Great Britain and France.
In 1922 the United States congress passed the following resolution:
That the United States favours the establishment in Palestine of .a national home for Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other nonJewish communities in Palestine shall be adequately protected.
Since 1921, there have been from time to time serious troubles in Palestine which have resulted in the publishing of general white papers, the most important of which was issued in May, 1939. In this the British government proposed that within ten years an independent state be created in Palestine, but it limited Jewish immigration into Palestine to 75,000 for the next five years. After that date Arab consent would be necessary for further immigration; and it provided that land purchased by Jews would be prohibited in some districts and restricted in others.
Zionists and their henchmen in Great Britain, Canada and the United States have maintained terrific propaganda and political pressure to open the doors of Palestine to the fullest possible extent, so that ultimately it may become a free Jewish commonwealth.
In 1920, the Jews formed eight per cent of the people of Palestine. In 1943 they coim prised thirty-three per cent, while the rapid development of political zionism and its growing power naturally increased the anxiety of the Arab people.
To sum up:
1.	The Zionists claim Palestine is their own, on historical and religious grounds. So do the Arabs, who have been there for many centuries, while the Jews left in A.D. 71. To three hundred millions of Molsems Palestine is a holy land. A Moslem family has been entrusted with the keys of the holy sepulchre for several generations.
2.	Zionists claim that the Arabs benefit from the colonization of Palestine. Sir John Hope Simpson's report states:
It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gam any advantage whether now or at any other time in the future. He is deprived forever from employment on that 'land, nor can any one help him by buying .the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable.
3.	Zionists claim they brought the benefits of civilization to the Arabs of Palestine.

Arabs have not benefited from Jewish education, since the language in Jewish schools is Hebrew. And as to medical facilities, Arabs do not frequent Zionist hospitals. According to the latest report -to the league of nations, out of 12,000 patients admitted to Zionist hospitals, only four were Moslems; seven were Christians; nearly 12,000 were Jews.
4.	Zionists claim that by industrialization Palestine can support a large Jewish population. Facts are that industry in Palestine is supported by charity and discriminatory tariffs. But the real issue cannot be settled on a material basis. The fundamental question is one of freedom. According to the Atlantic charter we agreed, first, to seek no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned and, second, to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them. It may be replied that the Atlantic charter does not apply to Palestine, but in a letter to King Ibn Saud, dated April 5, 1945, President Roosevelt stated:
Your Majesty will ialso doubtless recall that during our recent conversation I assured you I would take no .action in my capacity as crnei of the executive branch of this government which might prove hostile to 'the Aral) people.
President Truman, in his speech on navy day, October 27, 1945, said:
We believe that all peoples who are prepared for self-government should be permitted to choose their own form of government by their own freely expressed choice, without interference from any foreign source. That is true in Jturope, in Asia, in Africa, as well as in the western hemisphere.
The story of Palestine is one of broken promises and secret agreements by the great powers

of power politics. The late Colonel T. E. -Lawrence-Lawrence of Arabia-whose actions and writings prove him to have been a very great and brilliant Englishman, and an honourable man, led t'he Arab revolt against the Turks in the first great war. When he heard of the broken pledges to the Arabs he refused all the honours offered by his country, enlisted in the ranks and finally committed suicide.	'
I submit that the Pax Britannica was maintained by faith in British pledges and that Palestine is a graveyard of that peace. Certainly those who are working hardest for Britain's downfall are to be found among the Zionists, their agents and communist cousins.


Mr. WARREN:: .1 submit that on other occasions it has been ruled that members are not permitted to read speeches.


Norman Jaques: I stated at the beginning that I was dealing with a thorny subject. If

Supply-External Affairs
my speech does not please the hon. member, may I suggest that he just go to the other side of the curtains.


William Ross Macdonald: It is not a question of whether or not the speech pleases another hon. member; the only question is whether or not the hon. member is in order.


Norman Jaques: I will recall my remark and regret that I made it.
In regard to the objection that 'has just been raised, I may say that I have been here for ten years, and I do not think any one has ever accused me before of reading a speech. I do not think there are many hon. members who can say that.


William Ross Macdonald: I did not rule that the hon. member was reading 'his speech.


Norman Jaques: Thank you very much.
Principles have been sacrificed for expediency, for which we have broken faith with our friends and faithful allies, such as the Poles, the Yugoslavs and the Arabs in Europe, Asia and Africa.
Quite recently it was reported that the national leader of the C.C.F. at a public meeting in Washington, "urged the immediate opening of Palestine for Jewish immigration to the fullest possible extent so as to provide a refuge from the terror of their persecutors." In the light of the present critical conditions in Palestine, I would 'ask the leader of the C.C.F.: Can he assure us in making those demands that he is promoting the interests of world peace? Does he realize that such demands are calculated to embarrass Great Britain and if insisted on may lead to a clash of interests between the British empire, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.? In the event of war in Palestine and the near east, is he prepared to commit Canadians to active service in such a war? If not, whom would he expect to fight it? The nazis having been destroyed, from what persecutors and terrors does he seek refuge?
About a year ago the C.C.F. leaders were denouncing Great Britain's efforts to_ protect Greek civilians from communist terrorists, and now they are hindering her efforts to protect Palestinian civilians from Zionist extremists. To show the extent of the propaganda that is being used, may I quote from a pamphlet which was recently sent to me by a business friend in Toronto who told me that he found it pinned to an invoice which he received from another business man. I shall not read the whole thing, but I should like to make one or two quotations. It is headed "Pretend You're a Jew" and reads:
Offhand would you say Jews are entitled to a break now? You say without reservation that these three million surviving Europen Jews deserve to be left alive.	<
But (and here's where your non-Jewish neighbours 'are amazed to hear about it), England doesn't think so. England thinks they ought^ to die as fast .as possible. And England is seeing to it that they may really die as fast as possible.
And further down:
England's new Labour government is still barring Palestine to the Jews. And the Jews are desperate. The European Jews are desperate to get in. The Palestine Jews are desperate to get them in.
So there's friction. Friction between Palestine's Jews and the English authorities. Only the English colonial office, being good publicity men, are careful to tell the world that the trouble is between the Jews and the Arabs ana that the English'are just the poor referee.
And England keeps sending troops into Palestine, and it's not for the troops' health either. She even goes so far as to transport one hundred thousand anti-Russian and anti-Jewish Poles to Palestine. These Poles are afraid to go back to Poland, and England sends them to Palestine instead of to Canada or Australia or New Zealand. England is fixing to have plenty of man-power to quell any revolt of the Jews.
But whether you're interested in more of the story or not, just bear it all in mind when you see those little stickers that the undersigned has been putting on his business correspondence.
And the sticker reads:
As proud and self-respecting Canadians we will buy no goods made in England as long as England bars the Jews from Palestine.
That statement is signed and the name and address of the writer is given. I do not know that I should advertise the author but, if the committee wishes, I will give his name and address.


John Oliver Probe: Certainly; give them the works.


Norman Jaques: It is signed by I. M. Grin-gorten; the address is 272 Van Horne street, Toronto, and it is dated October 1, 1945. You may say that that is an irresponsible individual, but here is a statement that was recently made by Doctor Stephen Wise, president of the World Jewish Congress in a national radio address in the United States. He charged:
The anti-Jewish riots in Tripoli were instigated by the Arab league under the leadership of reprehensible underlings of the British colonial office.
That statement was made by the president of the World Jewish Congress, and these statements are being made to inflame the feelings of millions of people in America and elsewhere, who thus are being taught to become anti-British. There can be no doubt that this biased and misleading propaganda by well-
Supply-External Affairs

known public men is sowing the seeds of racial, national and religious hatred among people everywhere. Let me quote a statement that was printed in The Statesman of Calcutta on April 13, 1944:
rT^e,eo0cki"g twaddle spoken and written by United States publicists and the press about .Palestine contains more than one danger . . .
The more _ the strongest and more democratic existing nation undertakes permanent responsibilities on peace-loving men's behalf outside the American continent the better we shall be pleased. But if that happens there is already danger that it will have initially to contend with widespread Muslim suspicion.
Owing to American propaganda about the Palestine problems, which is presumed to reflect American general opinion, many Muslims now suppose the U.S.A. to be anti-Islamic. For that reason comments such as have recently come from the U.S.A. on the very delicate and complex problem of Palestine which excites Muslim interest everywhere appear to us to be deplorable.
That statement is from the. Calcutta Statesman. There is another curious side of this question, which is presented by Doctor Charles Watson, of the American university of Cairo. He wrote in April, 1944:
The reason given for the disturbances at this time is that as soon as Europe is open to a return of now exiled Jews, there will be a mass exodus of Jews from Palestine back to their homes in Europe which will weaken seriously the Zionist cause and support. The time to strike is therefore now.
In the "Reader's Digest" of May, 1944, Frederick C. Painton stated:
The Jewish agency people fear that the skilled refugee who make many of these products (exhibited m Tel Aviv) will return to their native lands when the war is over. The Czech Jews were being absorbed in their nation until the war-they knew no persecution. They look upon themselves as Czechs, not Jews, and want to go home. The Dutch diamond cutter intends to go home to Holland. Strangely enough, scores of the German Jews want to go back to Germany. This failure to sink roots deeply applies to American Jews; of 5,500 such in Palestine less than 100 have given up their American passports. The other Jews in Palestine know this and fear it and it is one reason why the extremists are making the trouble now. Many leading Jews told me they feared they would lose their main argument at war's end by *having more emigrants than immigrants.
According to these Zionists the non-Jewish inhabitants have not been injured1; they have been benefited. But it is curious that the lucky Arabs should be so blind to their own welfare that they resist the gifts and benefits which the Zionists and their agents of this Palestine committee are so anxious to bestow, even by force if necessary. How would we Canadians appreciate a few million aliens being forced upon us who thereupon proceeded to buy up our land, with the proviso that no Canadian ever again could own the land or
tMr. Jaques.]
even work on it. Would we be primitive and guilty of blackmail if we resisted such an invasion?


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Norman Jaques: I have just three lines more, Mr. Chairman. Had we known that the united nations *would force us to accept such terms, would we have ratified, the united nations charter? Let me repeat, my whole object is to establish the truth and so to promote world peace based on international good1 faith in international promises.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: After all these $64 questions "wit to the Prime Minister, I have but one simple question to put to him. I would ask the Prime Minister, as Minister of External Affairs, this question. I have four personal friends, now good citizens of Canada and good taxpayers in Canada, who owned considerable property in Berlin and who have the deeds to that property at the present time. They have asked me to find out how they can proceed to get recompense for their property taken from them by Hitler. I have written to the Department of External Affairs but have not yet received an answer. I know that the hon. Minister for External Affairs can advise me so that I can advise these people.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that we are dealing with the Department of External Affairs. I believe the matter to which he refers comes under the Department of the Secretary of State.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No. *


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that it would be possible for the friends of my hon. friend to file their claims with the Department of External Affairs, and action would be taken on their claims in accordance with the procedure which is being arranged at the present time.
May I answer the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin on his question respecting the Arabs in Palestine? It may be that he has served his own purpose better by giving us a speech than by putting any question to which I could reply. But in regard to this question of Palestine, I would say it was, when I was in England, as burning as any other issue which was being considered by the British government. As my hon. friend knows, the British government invited the government of the United States to join with them in appointing a committee of inquiry into the whole question. The government of the United States agreed to accept the invitation of the British government and a committee of inquiry was ap-

Supply-External Affairs
pointed. I believe that on the 10th of this month the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced the personnel of that committee. I could give my hon. friend and the committee a statement of the matters which they have been authorized to examine, but I do not think I need take up time in doing it at this hour of the day. They are comprehensive and they cover, I think, all that is uppermost in the minds of those who are greatly concerned about this question. I take it that the peoples of this continent and of Great Britain feel that the right procedure has been adopted in having the whole matter gone into by this joint Anglo-American committee, which will report, I believe, very soon.


Norman Jaques: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. I only wish to say that my purpose was to do what little I could to expose the activities of certain organizations which are handicapping the efforts of people of good will, like the governments of the United States and of Great Britain, to promote good feeling and peace in Palestine and elsewhere.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not going to refer to what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin said, for the simple reason that, were I to do so, I might imply that he should be taken seriously, and that would be regrettable. What I wish to do is to advance another suggestion to the government, for which I hope to get a more tolerant acceptance than the last one I made. The situation in the Argentine to-day is one which must cause alarm to many people. We see arising in that country what is nothing less than a fascist dictatorship. This is not the time to appease fascism. We have learned our lesson, I hope, from the past. There are hundreds of thousands of loyal democrats in the Argentine who are looking northward for help and for some inspiration; and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that, if we occupy the position we say we do, that of a leader among the middle powers, we should realize the responsibility which goes with it and should show our condemnation of what is happening in the Argentine by withdrawing from that country our ambassador.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Before this item carries, I feel that, as a member of the committee of external affairs and as a. member of the steering committee which drew the report that was finally adopted by the whole committee and presented to this house, and which report was unfavourable to the ratification of the treaty and protocol and recommended 47698-234
that it be reconsidered, I should at this time give briefly some of the reasons why both committees came to their conclusions.
The conclusions the committee came to were, I think, based on four fundamental points. We-and I speak because I do not see any other members of the steering committee here-felt that while an instrument of extradition was essential, the instrument which was presented was so drawn and violated so many fundamental principles that we could not on the face of it recommend its adoption. Basically the principles which the treaty violated were these. First, it did away with the time-honoured and, I believe, historic principle of dual criminality. In other words, extradition could be sought by the requesting country for an offence which was not an offence under the laws of the requested country. A great deal of evidence and a great deal of learned evidence was produced on this matter. It is all in the record, and I do not propose to go into it at this late hour; but I suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to the high contracting parties that when they redraw this instrument of extradition they should not disregard the basic principle of dual criminality.
The second fundamental point which the committee felt was detrimental to the acceptance of this instrument was that the treaty ,by its various clauses greatly enlarged the offences for which extradition might be sought, and it not only enlarged the offences which time has brought to mean the offences for which extradition could be soughW-that is criminal offences-but it enlarged them to include regulations not brought about by legislative bodies but by committees appointed by legislative bodies, and these regulations were considered to be not in the best interests of this country or the best or even good extradition practice.	-
The third reason-and this was an important one-was that we were not satisfied that the treaty and protocol as drawn were not ultra vires of this parliament with regard to the rights of property and civil rights as vested in the provinces under the British North America Act. We had a degree of learned opinion on this matter, including the attorney general of British Columbia. I am not myself learned in the law, but I venture to suggest to those whose duty it will be to redraw this instrument that that point be carefully and definitely looked into before the treaty is again presented.
Then-and this is not a legal point; it is perhaps a physical point-we felt that the restrictive clauses which were mentioned in the

Supply-External Affairs

treaty, subsections 26, 31, 32, article III, article IX and article XII, section 1 of the treaty, would definitely restrict the opening up of our great natural resources. May I suggest to the high contracting parties that this is one of the fundamental economic necessities of the entire North American continent, and if our great natural resources are not expanded to the fullest extent not only we but the republic to the south, that great and friendly nation, will suffer. We specifically refrained from mentioning sovereignty. I believe we realize, as the Prime Minister pointed out this morning when discussing atomic energy, that no question of narrow sovereignty can carry real weight at the present time, and we feel that we should reject any appeal to present this adverse report on the treaty and the protocol on a question of sovereignty. I am not going to speak at length on the individual parts of the treaty, but I would suggest-and the report was a unanimous one-that, w'hen this treaty is redrawn and reconsidered, these fundamental and basic points of international agreement shall not be violated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
'Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence, $2,500.
Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister explain why this vote is so small? Is that the total amount for the board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item relates only to incidental travelling expenses.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total vote for the board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs meet the general expenses of the board, and this amount is to supplement what has already been provided.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any intention of
doing away with the board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS Chief architect's branch-Ontario-
255. Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, London public building-repointing masonry, painting and repairs (revote $15,000), Ottawa-hydrogenation laboratory for the Department of Mines and Resources (revote), Ottawa-central experimental farm- water tank and pump house, etc. (revote $22,000), $480,000.
George Hugh Castleden: What is this item?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: This is for improvements and repairs to public buildings in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
551.	Public buildings generally-repairs, alterations, fittings and improvements-further amount required, $75,000.
George Hugh Castleden: In the absence of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) I should like to ask the minister certain questions in regard to Gimli.


Alphonse Fournier: Will the hon.
member be good enough to wait until we get to item 565, which is for wharf reconstruction and so forth? There is a vote of $10,000 there for Gimli.


George Hugh Castleden: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-dredging-
552.	Maritime provinces-further amount required, $46,200.
Percy Chapman Black: May I point out the necessity of undertaking dredging at Pugwash. That is a port where no dredging, has been done. It is one of the finest ports -in all Canada for depth of water, but it requires some dredging to straighten the channel, which is just a natural channel, in order to take larger steamers. At the present time it is able to take steamers with a draft of about twenty-one or twenty-two feet, which are the 4,700-ton boats; it will not take the 10,000-ton cargo boats, of which so many were built in Canada during the war. For these it would require dredging in certain places to a depth of over twenty-eight feet. I am not going to delay the committee further at this time, but I wanted to point this out to the minister, because it is the general wish of the shippers in that part of Nova Scotia-and this port also serves a considerable portion of New Brunswick-that this work be undertaken by the department as soon as possible.


Alphonse Fournier: We shall certainly take note of the remarks made by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer s branch-construction, repairs
and improvements-harbours and rivers___
Prince Edward Island-
. 561. Charlottetown-wharf reconstruction and improvements (estimated cost $340,000), $50000. " '
Red Head-wharf extension and breakwater (revote $2,900), $3,500.
Rocky Point-wharf reconstruction (estimated cost $42,000), $20,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken-further amount required, $10,000.

Supply-Public Works
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice here an amount for Rocky Point wharf. A peculiar situation exists in reference to this wharf. It is half owned by the dominion government and half by the provincial government, and in repairing it they always have two different crews. They always have more bosses on it than workmen. I have often wondered whether something could not be done to have this wharf owned outright by either the federal government or the provincial government. It has always been in a most unsatisfactory condition. If the dominion government does its repair work, the provincial government does not do its work. It has been repaired from time to time, but they have never made a good job of it. Is there any possibility of the dominion government taking it over entirely?


Alphonse Fournier: I shall have the resident engineer prepare a report, and see if we can adopt the hon. member's suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-construction, repairs
and improvements-harbour .and rivers-
Manitoba

	.
565. Gimli-wharf reconstruction (estimated cost $62,000), $10,000.	.
Selkirk-wharf reconstruction (estimated cost $148,000), $10,000.	.
St. Andrews-river breakwater (estimated cost $11,000), $5,000.
George Hugh Castleden: I believe the minister was going to make a statement in connection with Gimli wharf. I notice that the total cost is estimated at $62,000 and that the expenditure this year is to be $10,000. I should like to know whether that includes the extension of the breakwater. Probably the minister has a report on conditions there. The breakwater has collapsed to such an extent that the water is now flooding a large area of the town where they have built a home, and is threatening to move in and destroy a great deal of property in the lower part of the town. The board of trade and the town itself are making strong representations that something be done about the breakwater, but there seems to be no estimate for that here. Could the minister give us a statement?


Alphonse Fournier: The proposed work is the reconstruction in sheet steel piling of the S50-foot crib and pile wharf, twenty-two feet wide, largely rock-filled. It is also proposed to widen the outer thirty feet of the wharf to thirty feet. I have a report here from the engineer concerning this wharf. He says that Gimli wharf consists of three sections, or legs, at an angle with each other, having a total length of 743 feet measured along the harbour side. The shore leg is 148 feet; the middle one is 345 feet; and the outer leg is 47696-234i
250 feet long. The shore leg is twenty feet three inches; the middle leg is twenty-one feet two inches, and the outer end is twenty-two feet three inches wide. This wharf, along with a jetty to the south, serves to make a harbour of refuge and also a receiving and shipping point for fish. It is generally in poor condition jnd repair, but still serviceable. It is proposed to reconstruct the wharf as a post-war project, using as much as possible of the existing wharf as a core. On account of the heavy ice shoves that sometimes occur, it is proposed to widen the outer thirty feet of the wharf to a width of thirty feet.
The type of new construction is sheet-pile work on both sides of the shore leg; on the seaward side of the middle leg, and on both sides and end of the outer leg. Where there is danger of abrasive action from ice; that is, the outermost forty-five feet of the harbour side, the outer end and the seaward sides of the outer and middle legs, it is proposed to use steel sheet piles. That is the report I have concerning this work.


George Hugh Castleden: It is probable that the engineers have arranged in their construction to take care of part of the breakwater. It is intended to spend only $10,000 on that construction this year?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. We could not spend more between now and the end of March, but the total estimate is $62,000. That would be the amount required to finish what we have in mind.


George Hugh Castleden: Then, if we have the minister's word that they will try to complete the wharf, probably the people will be satisfied, if that is being taken care of in the estimates for next year.


Alphonse Fournier: I might ask for a report on this part of the project mentioned by the hon. member, and let him know.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister would forward it to the hon. member for Selkirk he would be pleased.


Alphonse Fournier: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If I am in order I just wish to say that I made a mistake when speaking on item 561. I notice there an amount of $50,000, and I want to thank the minister for putting that in the supplementary estimates.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
231. Departmental administration, $811,425.
John Bracken: Might I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to give us the programme from now until prorogation. I have been can-
Supply-Post Office

vassing the situation, and I wish to help the government to get through so that we may be sure to have prorogation to-morrow. I wonder if you, Mr. Chairman, would permit the minister to outline the work we have yet to do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was my intention before adjournment to-night, slightly before midnight, to ask the house to meet at 10.30 o'clock in the morning. The items still undisposed of are: finance, nineteen items; insurance, two items; legislation, which is a non^controversial matter, about ten items; munitions and supply, just two formal items which are not controversial; national defence, mostly routine amounts for militia pensions and so on, which are not contentious; national war services, one item ; post office, six items, which we are taking up now; reconstruction, three items; national revenue, eight items, and the supplementaries in all departments. That is the whole list.


John Bracken: I wonder if the leader of the government would permit my making a suggestion. I -have canvassed the situation, and I think there is an inclination on the part of hon. members on this side of the house to try to get through. There may be someone over there who- might wish to continue the discussion after to-morrow, but we would- like to help the government to get through. I suggest that we go on to-night until 11.30 o'clock; then we come in at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning and plan to take one hour for lunch. I think there is a general disposition to assure the government that we shall be through here not later than five o'clock. One cannot speak for everybody, but I think there is an inclination to do that. Would that be acceptable?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that is a most reasonable suggestion. We will adjourn to-night at 11.30 p.m. and come back to-morrow at eleven a.m. We would have only one hour for lunch to-morrow and finish about four or five o'clock in the afternoon for prorogation.


John Bracken: Not later than five
o'clock. I hope I have not spoken out of turn.


George Hugh Castleden: We will do our -best. This group has not any long speeches to make. If government followers do not make long speeches, I think we could get through by that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2ST Railway mail -service, $14,651,279.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
should like to bring to the attention of the minister the case respecting railway mail clerks with which I have no doubt he is already 
familiar. These- men are the highest glass- of manipulative workers in the post office department, and- they consider they are being discriminated against. I should like to place their case before the minister.
On July 1 of last year post office workers who were receiving sub-standard- wages quite properly got an increase ranging from $120 to $180 a year, while railway mail clerks go-t only S60, thus reducing the differential between ordinary post office workers and railway mail clerks.
I am also informed- that railway mail clerks got mileage in their salaries, for -the purpose of superannuation; but this did- not represent any actual increase. I know that representations were made a year ago to the minister asking that the differential be reestablished. The answer always given is that this is in the hands of the civil service commission, and that until the commission reports nothing can be d-one about it. -Could -the minister give me a statement on the matter?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Of course, I have no more jurisdiction over these salaries than -had my predecessor. The civil service commission regulates these things. However, I may tell my hon. friend- that representations will be made very shortly on this point and-, as soon as this session is over, I intend- taking -this matter up with my officials to see what we can do. The hon. member may know that we also have to d-o something about the war bonus.
I am not ready this evening to state exactly what we shall do. However, we want to be reasonable, and we are going to consider the matter.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am glad to hear that the minister will do everything possible to reestablish the differential.


Thomas John Bentley: The little city of Swift Current from which I come has been anxious for a long time to have a postal delivery service. Is the minister giving this matter serious consideration? If this were looked into, it would be greatly appreciated. Certainly all cities of that size have this service. It is difficult for many people to get down to the post office, and- I should like to have a definite answer from the minister.


Ernest Bertrand: We are
inclined to give mail delivery to all cities in which the revenue is $40,000 or more. We should like to give it wherever there are a sufficient number of citizens to justify our doing so. However, we have to follow certain rides. We ask that there be a net revenue of $40,000, and that there be at least 2,000 points of call in order to employ our men.

Supply-Reconstruction
If Swift Current comes within these stipulations, I am sure we shall be happy to give the service. However, the streets have to be well marked and the houses numbered. I do not know whether Swift Current has those things.


Thomas John Bentley: Oh, yes, we are quite civilized.


Ernest Bertrand: Or if there are long streets without many points of call, it would not be possible.


Thomas John Bentley: That is not the situation, at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
235. Air and land mail services, $19,862,725.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In my constituency there has been quite a controversy in recent weeks owing to the awarding of a rural mail contract to a non-veteran, at a price $200 below that offered by veteran tenderers. This subject is fraught with difficulty. Would the minister give consideration to making it possible to give greater preference to veterans in connection with rural mail delivery?


Ernest Bertrand: This is a ques-question which at times is embarrassing, but which we should like to settle in accordance with the wishes of the hon. member. However, we must decide whether we can grant contracts to returned men, in preference to civilians, where tenders are asked. If we did that, it would completely destroy the principle behind the tender. If we ask for tenders we have to be fair with the people who submit tenders, and of course we must give the contract to the lowest bidder, provided that he has the necessary equipment to fulfil his contract. If we were to make an exception and give a contract to a returned man, whether he was a lower bidder or not, in our opinion it would destroy the principle behind the tender, and might become a source of collusion.
Very often in towns or villages where we have rural mail delivery there might not be even one returned man who would be ready to take a contract. Some other people, knowing that a returned man would have a 100 per cent preference, might ask him to tender on their behalf. We think the Post Office Department in these circumstances might lose many millions of dollars throughout Canada. We have to abide by the Post Office Act, which is the law in force to-day, and which obliges us to give contracts to the lowest tenderers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the minister given consideration to the proposals of the dominion command of the Canadian Legion, in which they suggest that the whole question be
reviewed, and that the delivery of rural mail be put on a mileage basis?


Ernest Bertrand: That would not be possible. It would have to be a base which could be applied to all Canada. The transportation of mail on the plains in western Canada, and the transportation of mails over the mountains in British Columbia, on difficult roads, would not be comparable, and the same base could not be applied. It has to be a tender for every one of these rural mail deliveries, because conditions are not the same.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister has told us how these contracts are made and so on, and I should like to say a few words about rural mail delivery. This is a most difficult job, especially in wintertime, and unfortunately it is the most underpaid service of any of the services of the dominion government. It is quite true that during the last four years the government has paid an extra bonus to rural mail carriers, but that is not on an honest-to-goodness basis. Is there any possibility of bringing these men under the civil service, so that they may be paid for their services?


Ernest Bertrand: It is done by tender, and that is the best way we can do it. The minister may award contracts up to $200. The section of the act is the same as it was in 1867. Sometimes people tender for contracts which will take only part of their time, and in an effort to make a few hundred dollars they calculate at too low a rate. At different times we have had to take over these contracts and ask for new tenders. It was my intention this year to ask to have this limit raised from $200 to $400 to protect these people against themselves, but we cannot do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
308. Departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, $1,500,000.
George Hugh Castleden: There are a number of things in connection with the Department of Reconstruction which require clarification. War Assets Corporation is under this department, and the people of Canada have been inquiring about what is being done with the billions of dollars worth of war assets which now stand to the credit of the Canadian people. The people of Canada gave freely throughout the period of the war in an effort to bring the war to a successful conclusion. There was scarcely a question raised during the whole period of the war about the granting of money. We were in the full flush of
Supply-Reconstruction

production when the war ended, and there were many war assets in Europe, in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world.
All these are being disposed of through War Assets Corporation, and the Canadian people would like to know what is happening to them. I am of the opinion that the Minister of Finance is anxious that the treasury should be reimbursed as soon as possible for what value is there. The Canadian people consider that these assets belong to them, and they view with considerable alarm one or two aspects in connection with their disposal. In the first place, soldiers coming out of the army find it difficult 'to get the trucks they were driving around during the war. Jeeps and things . like that do not seem to be available at all.
Many questions were placed on the' order paper with regard to what was happening. They stayed there for weeks, and finally the Minister of Reconstruction asked that they be withdrawn on the promise that they would be answered fully in the committee. We accepted that in good faith and they were [DOT]withdrawn. The committee held about ten meetings of about an hour and a quarter each. That committee undertook to study the set-up and organization of War Assets Corporation. The steering committee agreed on that, which was all to the good. However, it seemed that War Assets Corporation was in a constant state of flux. Policies which were placed on the paper with regard to their organization seemed to show one thing, while actual operations seemed to show another.
Farmers inquire whether it would be possible for them to get hold of tractors or ;rucks. Provincial governments would like to get hold of road-making machinery and aeroplanes, but they are having considerable difficulty. Hospitals wish to know if it would be possible for them to get hold of hospital supplies. People need things such as blankets and clothing, and there are tools which the government could use. There are thousands of schools in the different provinces which could use radio material, generators and other things in their construction and science classes. These things would be of very little loss to the government if they were turned over to these schools.
We were quite anxious that this committee which was carrying on an investigation of this work should continue. As I say, the committee had only ten meetings. A report was tabled in the house, which report stated that the committee would be reorganized at the
[Mr. Castleden.J
next sitting of parliament to carry on its work. Between now and the time at which the committee could be set up will be at least three months. War Assets Corporation is receiving into its funds $10,000,000 a month. The report which stated that the committee would not sit until the next session was a majority report, but there was opposition.
We have more to say on this matter than can possibly be said to-night, and since it is close to eleven o'clock I think the committee should rise.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house, and as a result of the discussion we had1 a few minutes ago, I would move:
That when the house rises at one o'clock tomorrow there shall be ian intermission until two o clock p.m., notwithstanding the order piassed on November 27, 1945.


John Bracken: Can the minister say
now at what time prorogation will take place?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will depend, of
course, entirely upon the .progress made in the house. Generally speaking, the other place requires an hour's notice after we have finished the active business of this chamber. So that if we finished at three or four o'clock, prorogation would be about five o'clock. But I shall be pleased to let my hon. friend know to-morrow.
May I refer to a question asked by the leader of the opposition this morning when I was engaged on other duties outside the chamber. He asked whether the committee on the orders and rules of the house would be set up again next session. It is the intention to set up that committee as soon as possible after the new session is convened.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, December 18, 1945