1946-05-14

Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in connection with a story which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Evening Journal about the fate of certain questions asked by myself. A direct quotation was included in the story. It has been my experience that one who makes a statement is as the mother; the reporter is very often in the place of the father, and the child always takes after the father. The words attributed to me in the story are:
"I'm having a lot of questions turned down these days," he complained, "and I am getting mad about it."
The inference unfortunately is that we are not getting the service we expect from the officials of the house. I should like to dispel that inference immediately. I have nothing but praise for the cooperation and assistance which we do get. Whatever slighting reference there is in the story applies entirely to the government.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The government is quite prepared to accept that, from the hon. gentleman,



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) presented the first and second reports of the banking and commerce committee, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave on behalf of the Department of External Affairs to table copies of notes exchanged between Canada and France concerning the release of private property from government control. These notes were dated Ottawa, February 12, March 22, March 23, March 27 and April 3, 1946, and constitute the Canadian Treaty Series 16 of 1946. From the exchange of notes there results an agree-
[Stage Direction]
1494	COMMONS
Radio Broadcasting-Special Committee
ment providing the conditions for the release of French private assets which had been placed under the custodian of enemy property in Canada at the time of the occupation of France b}' the enemy, and reciprocal provisions for whatever private Canadian assets might have come under government control in France.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, last month the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) raised the question of the dispatch of gift parcels from Canada to Hungary. At that time I told him that the matter was before this department and that this service would be placed in operation as soon as the necessary facilities became available. I am now glad to say that it has been found possible to restore the parcel post service to Hungary for parcels weighing up to eleven pounds and the Canadian postal service has been informed accordingly.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Albert Stuart White.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Edward Mortin Montgomery.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Evelyn Clare Ward Davis Murray.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Esther Genevieve Johnson Potter.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Wanita Winifred Ellerton Upton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Joseph Victor Emile Tasse.-Mr. Maybank.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That the committee appointed on 16th April last to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies of the corporation shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Beaudoin. Bertrand (Prescott), Bowerman, Diefenbaker, Fleming, Fulton. Gauthier (Portneuf), Hackett, Hansel], Knight, Laurendeau, Leger, Maybank, McCann, McCulloch, Mullins, Nixon, Picard, Pinard, Robinson (Simcoe East), Ross Hamilton East), Ross (St. Paul's). Smith (Calgary West), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Zaplitny.  ,


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I was not here yesterday, but I understood that this was not on the agenda for to-day's proceedings.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): There is no such thing as an agenda.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister
wants to be technical.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Order paper".


Gordon Graydon: He can be so if he desires, but I was using a term which I thought conveyed my idea, namely that I understood the order of business for to-day did not include the moving of this particular motion. I believe there are one or two hon. members who desire to say something in connection with it. If it is going on to-day I want to ask the- minister a question; but perhaps the government would be prepared to let it stand over until to-morrow.


James Joseph McCann: May I point out that on April 16 the motion to set up the committee was passed, and this motion to-day has to do entirely with the personnel of the committee. Outside of the personnel, therefore, any other discussion, I submit, would not be in order. There was a debate on April 16 when the original motion was passed. The motion was:
That a select committee, the members thereof to be later named, be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records.
That motion was discussed and carried, and at this time we are only naming the personnel; so any discussion on this motion would have to do entirely with the members who will constitute the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: As one who is anxious to say something on this motion, speaking to the point of order raised by the minister, Mr. Speaker, may I submit, with respect, that a resolution of this nature is debatable, and that it should in no sense be confined to the personnel of the committee. What I had intended to say had to do not so much with what the committee might do but with the matter of government policy with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting

Radio Broadcasting-Special Committee
Corporation. I would like a ruling, sir, as to whether or not I am in order in making such a speech on this motion.


Mr. HANSELL:: On the point of order which has been raised, I think the minister will agree that in, years gone by we have had an open discussion on matters pertaining to these committees, even when the personnel of the committee has been included in the motion; otherwise there is nothing we can discuss. I could not very well discuss the colour of the hair or the colour of the eyes of these men. The matter for discussion is with respect to the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe the point of order made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is well taken, because last night when we concluded our business the leader of the house told us what we should go on with to-day, and he did not include in his remarks that we would take up this motion; consequently we expected that the minister would ask that it stand. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this looks too much as though the resolution, if this order is proceeded with, is being slipped through. I am not saying it is; perhaps we should have been a little more alert, but it would not hurt for the matter to stand for another day.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I say a word on the point of order? I think there are quite a few members who wish to say something about the policy of the broadcasting corporation. I have a matter which I should like to discuss. May I point out to Your [DOT] Honour that when we allowed the motion to go through, on April 16, it was the day before the house was adjourning for Easter; there was a great deal of business, and I know I felt, as probably some other hon. members did, that it was desirable to clean up the business which we were then discussing and that another opportunity would arise. At any rate I did not at that time feel like taking up the time of the house. But it has been usual, before sending the matter to the committee, to give members an opportunity to deal with some of the business which might be discussed before the committee. While the minister is perhaps technically right, I think that latitude in the past has been allowed.


James Joseph McCann: Personally I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to the fullest discussion if you declare that it is in order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think this can be done only by the unanimous consent of the house. I have no objection, either. But some hon. gentleman mentioned that this was not referred to last night on the agenda. It 63260-951
has never been the custom to refer to a government notice of motion the evening before; and the house had corftplete opportunity on April 16 to debate the whole principle in regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, sir, if there is a general desire now to debate this motion I am sure that my colleague has no objection, and probably the house itself has no objection. But strictly speaking we passed on the principle of the appointment of the committee on April 16, and this refers only to the personnel of the committee.


Mr. STIRLING:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw attention to the fact that on a previous night the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who was leading the house, did indicate that a government motion would be proceeded with,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was-


Grote Stirling: Excuse me, whereas last evening the wording he used was:
To-morrow we shall take up Bill No. 7 at the commencement of the proceedings.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no doubt that this motion is debatable under standing order 38, subparagraph (j):
The following motions are debatable:
(j) for the appointment of a committee,
The motion, now before the house reads in part:
That the committee appointed on 16th April last to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies of the corporation shall consist of the following members:
The principle of the establishment of a committee was accepted by the house on Tuesday, April 16, 1946. According to Votes and Proceedings of that date:
On motion of Mr. McCann, it was resolved,- That a select committee-thd members thereof to be later named, be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine-
Et cetera. The question before the house is not the principle of appointing a committee to do certain things as directed; the motion concerns the personnel of the committee. The Chair could not permit a debate on the principle of the appointment of a committee, that question having been decided by the house on April 16. I must therefore ask the house whether it is ready for the question.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one observation. The first resolution was put
1496	COMMONS
Radio Broadcasting-Special Committee
before the house on the day before we adjourned for the Easter recess. The sum total of the discussion that took place covers no more than one and a half columns of Hansard, and only two members, apart from the Minister of National Revenue, referred to the matter. I would respectfully suggest that under the circumstances debate ought not to be circumscribed in the manner you indicate. Of course we recognize the authority of the Speaker, and if your ruling, sir, is as you have stated, we shall of necessity accept it. I would repeat, however, that there has been no substantial debate on the motion that was submitted to the house on April 16.


James Horace King: The leader of the opposition no doubt realizes that the Speaker cannot take cognizance of any discussion there may have been between himself and the leader of the house. The duty of the Speaker is to follow the rules of the house. There is therefore but one course open to me, and that is ' to put the motion to the house, unless there is unanimous consent that the principle be debated with respect to the appointment of the committee itself. Is it the pleasure of the house to give unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the fact that in the past it has always been the practice to include (he personnel of the committee in the motion authorizing its appointment. This is an extra-ordinarjr proceeding.


James Horace King: The motion which I read to the house is simply that certain hon. members therein named shall constitute the committee already appointed, and no debate is permissible on the principle of the appointment of the committee. As I have already stated, that principle was accepted on Tuesday, April 16. Unless there is now unanimous consent for discussion of the principle of appointing the committee, I must put the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word. If I understood you correctly, we may debate the principle of the appointment of the committee if there is unanimous consent.


James Joseph McCann: The appointment of the committee was debated, and that motion was passed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I fully realize that the principle of the appointment of the. committee was passed, but that is all that was passed. I am not going to discuss that
[Mr. Brackpu.l
principle, but I do intend, if I am permitted, to discuss, on this motion, government policy with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. As a lawyer, the hon. member no doubt realizes that the only
question before the Chair at the moment is the personnel of the committee, which has already been appointed. It is the privilege of any hon. member to object to the appointment of a particular person on the committee, but no hon. member has the right at this stage to discuss the principle of appointing the committee. I shall therefore be obliged to put the question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say this on a point of order-and I am trying to learn something; I am not trying to be facetious. Could I not, in discussing the question whether I myself am qualified to act on that committee, give the reasons why in my opinion there are difficulties in the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the present time?


James Horace King: The hon. member knows the practice, and he is aware that it is his privilege, after the committee has been appointed, to move that his name be withdrawn.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I do not rise to discuss your ruling, Mr. Speaker; any remarks I make will have reference to the personnel of the committee. For instance, I see the names of the members for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin) and Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) on the committee. I suggest that this house give serious consideration to the appointment of these two hon. gentlemen on the committee unless they assure us that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its policy truly reflects the feeling of the house instead of the opinion of a particular section of parliament.
I see the names of the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Bowerman) and the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I suggest that they as members of the committee should give their opinion with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation outlawing provincial legislatures in respect of broadcasting systems.
I do not think that this house should appoint either of these gentlemen to the committee unless they give the house their views on this point.
I notice also the names of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. * member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I should like to hear these two gentlemen

Coal
state their opinions on the policy of the corporation, the promptness of the reporters in broadcasting the news of this parliament over the C.B.C., and their impartiality in connection therewith. I notice the name of the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) and the name of the member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). I should like to have them express their views on the qualifications of the various persons hired by the C.B.C., and what these hon. gentlemen think of the policy of the C.B.C. with regard to broadcasting. Then I notice the names of the members for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight). I should like to know from them, before they become members of this committee, what their belief is as to the wages, hours of labour and terms of service of the various employees of the C.B.C.
I now come to the names of the members for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Laurendeau) and Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). I should like to have them express their view as to whether this parliament gets sufficient information as to the policy of the C.B.C. without having to ask the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Reconstruction. Then there are the names of the members for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) and Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson). May I ask them to express their views to the house as to whether or not this government should not be more willing than it is to table correspondence, communications, interviews and particulars as to what goes on in the CH.C.
So I could go on down the line, but I suggest that before the personnel of this committee is appointed this house should give some guidance to the members of the committee as to the success or otherwise of this whole enterprise.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, notice of which I have already given him? What steps, if any, has the Minister of Reconstruction taken to assure the delivery to Canada of a fair proportion of the coal that will be mined in the United States during the two weeks of truce in the coal strike?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: In reply to the hon. member I may say that the solid fuels administration has issued orders restricting the delivery of the coal mined during the truce period to certain classes of essential users whose stock position is such as to require immediate delivery. The same classes of consumers in Canada, whose stocks are below the minimum will, I understand, receive the same treatment as those in the United States. Beyond this, I would point out that coal from the mines must first be supplied to United States railways whose services are vital if the coal is to continue to move at all.



SITUATION AT DRUMHELLER-SHIPMENTS PROM WALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I did not send the minister notice of the question I am going to ask about Drumheller coal. I know he is a walking encyclopsedia on the coal question and does not need notice. My question is: What is the present situation in connection with Drumheller coal production, and is it likely that a substantial tonnage of Drumheller coal will be shipped to Ontario for next winter's requirements?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The production in the Alberta fields is satisfactory. Each succeeding month is higher than the preceding month. It would seem that the area is producing all the coal that the available man-power will permit. The coal controller is moving as much of the coal east as he believes can be spared from this area. There will be a considerable amount of Alberta coal in Ontario this year. Steps are being taken to give incentive to increase the production of all the coal mined in Canada, and it is hoped that production, over and above the normal amount, will contribute to easing the serious situation which is facing us.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister say whether or not we are receiving Welsh coal at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No Welsh coal is coming into Canada at the present time. I am sure the hon. member knows that the United Kingdom itself is short of coal.



RETENTION OP SEED AND PEED IN COUNTRT ELEVATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. J. McCUAIG (Maple Creek):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government given
Radio Broadcasting

consideration to retaining sufficient seed and feed in country elevators in the west until the present drought is over and the 1946 crop is reasonably assured


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: At harvest time last fall the provincial governments asked us to freeze all grain in the area that was affected by drought last year until such time as they were able to make provision for its proper distribution for both feed and seed. So far I have had no complaints from anywhere that seed and feed are not provided. As a matter of fact to-day's reports indicate that the wheat is all seeded, as is a large percentage of the oats and barley; therefore I think the seeding is going along fairly satisfactorily.


Mr. COLDWELL:: If I understood the question, the hon. member means next year. In the event of drought taking place in these areas next year is some provision being made for 1947? That is the way I understood the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall have plenty of time to deal with that after July.


Duncan John McCuaig: That is what I had in mind.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I had intended to direct this question to the Minister of National Revenue had the government given unanimous consent to a discussion of the constitution of the radio broadcasting committee. I should like to direct the question to him now on the orders of the day. Are the facilities of the short wave broadcasting station of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Sackville sufficient to carry a broadcast to Russia? If so, are the facilities of this station being used for that purpose in the same way as are the facilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation? The reason I ask the question is that in the British House of Commons yesterday Mr. Hector McNeil, the under-secretary for foreign affairs, in answering a question of the opposition, said that the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in Russian were heard very well in Moscow and "many Soviet listeners are exhibiting a friendly and constructive interest in the programmes."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Who is the Speaker of the house? I was expecting to be called to order by His Honour the Speaker, but I have

been called to order from the far corner. This is a simple question, and an easy one for the minister to answer. I should appreciate it if he would answer it to-day.


James Joseph McCann: In reply to the hon. gentleman's question I can say that the power of the short wave station at Sackville is sufficiently strong to broadcast to Russia, but the facilities have not been used particularly for that purpose because when a programme is sent to a foreign country it is not of much use unless it is in the language of the country to which it is going. Among the personnel of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation we have no artists or others who can broadcast in Russian.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF THREE NEW STATIONS-ACQUISITION OF WAVE LENGTH OF THREE PRIVATE STATIONS

Arthur Leroy Smith: I have a question to ask the Minister of National Revenue, since I was not allowed to do it a moment ago. Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation purchased three new large stations, and are they contemplating taking over the wave lengths of from one to three private stations? I did not give the minister notice of this question, but I did not get much notice of what he did to me.


James Joseph McCann: The matter which the hon. member for Calgary West has brought up is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is Canadian Broadcasting Corporation policy. It is surely not government policy. Will the minister not answer it? It is a corporation.


James Joseph McCann: As the minister responsible for the announcing of policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I submit that when I do announce it I am indicating the policy which would be endorsed by the government, and that policy will be announced in due course.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Whose government is it?


Ernest George Hansell: Supplementing what the hon. member for Calgary West has said, may I say that I sometimes get a little tired of being brushed off with the remark that it is government policy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of the hon. member to the rules, which state that a minister is not obliged to answer a question, and to the fact that the

Canadian Citizenship
house has just appointed a committee to consider the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member will have an opportunity to ask his question before that committee.


Ernest George Hansell: I was just going to suggest to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that if he comes to me I can give him the answer which the minister was not able to give.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 13, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose last evening it was considering section 17 together with an amendment thereto moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Shall section 17 (1) carry?


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was saying a few words on this section when the committee adjourned last night. I wish to continue my remarks, but before going on to deal with the peculiar confusion that seems to exist among the members to my immediate right, where one section is urging that the government give up legislating by order in council and another section is urging that the government continue with it, I want to make reference to a statement made last night by the hon. member for New Westminster. Speaking on this section the hon. member said, as reported at page 1486 of Hansard:
Supposedly the new law did not impose compulsion, but every Japanese family that I knew of registered their children with the Japanese consul. When these people appeared before the committee of this house which sat in 1935 and again in 1936 they were asked to which country they owed allegiance. This was long before there was any question of racial hatred or thought of war. They said without hesitation that they were citizens of Japan.
A number of wild statements of that kind have been made and I think the best thing I can do is to answer the hon. member for New Westminster by quoting a statement made in the committee on the elections and franchise acts which sat in 1936 and 1937, and not in 1935 and 1936. The hon. member for Davenport was questioning one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and I quote from the procedings as follows:
Mr. MacNicol: You are Canadian born?
Professor Hayakawa:	I might tell you, for
the information of Mr. Reid, who seems to question our loyalty-
Mr. Reid:	No; hold on a minute. Just get
away from that. I have never questioned your loyalty nor do I. The inference I was drawing is that Japan has the first claim, because your children are registered in Japan, in time of trouble.
Professor Hayakawa:	No; Canada has the
first claim because we are here.
Surely if we feel that our case is just, we should not use material in support except what can be vouched for. The same question arises with regard to the 1,600 Japanese-Cana-dians who are supposed to have gone from Canada to Japan and to have fought against Canada in the Japanese army. May I say here and now that there is no definite evidence on that that anyone can bring forward in this committee.
I should like now to continue with the point I raised last night as to the different points of view in the official opposition in connection with orders in council. First I should like to quote what was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, as reported on page 513 of Hansard of April 2. I believe the hon. member was acting as the chief spokesman for the official opposition on that occasion, because he followed the Secretary of State in the debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. Referring to the orders in council, which I mentioned last night, he said:
The order in council P.C. 6577, and the order in council of October 5, 1945, P.C. 6444, which I believe will always be remembered as the forgotten order in council, interfere with the fundamental rights of citizenship which were referred to by the Secretary of State. Is it not time that in this country as in Great Britain these rights shall not be interfered with except under a law passed by the parliament of Canada?
I agree with that absolutely, and I suppose when the hon. member for Lake Centre made that statement he made it without reference to race, creed or colour. As I said before, having spoken in the debate immediately after the Secretary of State who introduced the bill I imagine he was speaking as the leading speaker for the official opposition. But what are we to say, what are we to think, when we pick up Hansard of April 5 and read what the hon. member for Vancouver South had to say? This is another prominent member of the official opposition, and at page 619 he said:
We intend to hold the government to its policy. We ask also that the whole of British Columbia he made a protective zone permanently as a defence measure. That is the policy advocated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). I hope he has not changed his mind since the announcement he made just a little over a year ago.
Canadian Citizenship

And then again, in the next column:
Parliament can empower the government to act on this question. We will support the government. I am confident that the Social Credit party will support them because of the stand they have taken throughout. The C.C.F. will not.
What I want to ask is this: What policy was the hon. member for Vancouver South insisting that the government should carry out? The policy of deportation, the policy of revoking naturalization and deporting Canadian citizens? Are we not entitled to ask who is speaking for the official opposition? Is it the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Vancouver South, or does the official opposition speak with two voices?
In the second paragraph from which I read, the hon. member for Vancouver South said that "parliament can empower the government to act on this question". "We will support the government." That is: "We will support the government" if it brings to this house a bill to revoke the naturalization of Canadian citizens, to make non-citizens. of people who were born in Canada. Then the hon. member generously included hon. members of the Social Credit party to my left. When the hon. member makes this statement in support of a bill he wishes the government to bring in, is he speaking for the hon. member for Lake Centre? Is he speaking for the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario? Is he speaking for the hon. member for Calgary West? Yes, is he speaking for any number of hon. members in the opposition, whose names I could mention, who have expressed themselves as astounded and perturbed by the policy of the government under which, by order in council, it takes away the rights of citizens? That is something this committee is entitled to know.
I too suggest to the government that they bring in a bill of this kind. When parliament refused to accept the emergency powers bill, and insisted upon a completely revised bill, the government reluctantly complied. In my opinion the government had no right to issue the orders in council. It should have had the courage to come to this house and ask parliament for permission to do what it wanted to do. Then we would have found out who stands for liberty-liberty without regard to race, colour, creed or language, or just liberty for the chosen few.
Later on in his speech of April 5 the hon. member for Vancouver South labelled as "pressure groups" those who have been working in all parts of Canada to prevent the government doing this iniquitous thing. The hon. member referred to the editor of Saturday Night, the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press,

and the editor of the Toronto Star. But I noticed there were omissions in his list of "pressure groups," including, at least one other editor who has supported the hon. member in his elections, but who does not support him on this issue. I refer to the Vancouver Daily Province. There were certain other pressure groups to which he did not refer. Among these can be found the Church of England in Canada, and the United Church of Canada, of which he is a member. He did not refer to either of these. Nor did he refer to the National Council of Women, to the Young Women's Christian Association, or to dozens of other "pressure groups." Pressure groups indeed! Anyone is a "pressure group" who will interfere with those who want to destroy liberty. They had pressure groups in Germany. They were the decent people of Germany. Hitler put them into the concentration camps.
Let us see what the Vancouver Daily Province has to say in its editorial of February 21, 1946, where it makes reference to the judgment of the supreme court. Before I read, let me remind hon. members, if they do not already know it, that the Vancouver Daily Province is the leading daily paper in British Columbia. It states:
The judgment of the supreme court on Japanese deportation touches the lives and destinies of 10,000 to 15,000 people of Japanese blood and may have tragic consequences for every one of them. But that is not all it does.
It also touches the lives and destinies of 12,000,000 Canadians, and the consequences to them may be tragic, too, if they do not take steps to protect themselves. The judgment is thus of greater importance to the Canadians who will remain at home than to the Japanese and the Japanese Canadians who may be deported under it.
And farther down:
The real question, however, is not what the government may or may not do.' The question is what it has the power to do. No government, it is not too much to say, should have the power to deport any Canadian citizen and no parliament should have the power to confer such authority upon a government.
In the last election the Vancouver Province did not support me; but it supports, and supports nobly, the policy I espouse on this question. The editorial continues:
There are certain rights which' are vital and fundamental. They should not be subject to revocation or destruction or interference. They should be sacred. Citizenship is one of these rights. The people of the United States, long ago, saw to it that their fundamental rights were safe-guarded. They placed a bill of rights in their constitution, and no president, no state or federal administration, no congress or court can interfere with them

Canadian Citizenship
And concluding:
Seven hundred thousand Canadians fought recently to protect fundamental rights. Tens of thousands laid down their lives. Are we going, now, to allow these fundamental rights to go bydefault? Or are we going to do something to guarantee them?
It is for those reasons that with the member for Vancouver South I would like to see the government bring into this house a bill to empower it to do what it did m an underhand way. At the very time we were discussing the emergency powers transition bill this government was drafting orders in council to put into effect what parliament said should not go into effect.
I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver South was really speaking for British Columbia. I have in my hand a clipping from the Vancouver News-Herald of March 23, 1946. It is J. K. Nesbitt's column, "Day in the House". It deals with the doings of the legislature during the session in Victoria. The subheading is "Putnam Wants Japs to Stay". Mr. Putnam is the minister of agriculture in British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: And a good man.


Angus MacInnis: A good man, I have not the slightest doubt. I believe he is a good man, and I think I shall prove it. I quote now:
Mr. Putnam was the first M.L.A. this session to refer to Japs. Time was when mention of this unfortunate section of Canadian people was sure to stir up a storm. The minister expressed concern that the Japs might be removed from the Okanagan. If this happens, said Mr. Putnam, it will be tough for the farmer, who desperately needs help.
Mr. Nesbitt concludes the paragraph:
Quite a change from the days when we heard Japanese-Canadians were useless.
I have one more quotation to make from the Vancouver Province, and I quote it because of all the indignities which have been heaped one after the other on the Japanese-Canadians. We have had Japanese in British Columbia for a long time. They fought in the last war when Japan was our ally; and let us not forget that there may be another war, and when the wheel of fate stops at the next war, the Japanese may again be our allies-who knows? If so, these little brown devils of to-day will be the little brown heroes of twenty-five years hence. I have here an excerpt from a news report which appeared in the Vancouver Province of February 24, 1920, dateline Victoria, B.C. It tells of a delegation which waited upon the provincial cabinet urging that the franchise be given in British Columbia to naturalized Canadians who fought in the great war. It says:
Leading the delegation was A. M. Whiteside, as counsel, while official support of the Vancouver branch of the great war veterans association for the Japanese was voiced by Captain Ian Mackenzie in his capacity as president.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite right. It is well known.


Angus MacInnis: The quotation goes on:
It was pointed out to the government that 195 sons of Nippon-
They were called sons of Nippon in those
days.
-had gone overseas from British Columbia in the ranks of the Canadian Expeditionary Force as naturalized British subjects. Out of tips number 54 had given their lives in the allied cause and all but 12 of the remainder had been wounded more or less seriously. It was a matter therefore, it was stated, for the government at the moment to make provision in the Provincial Elections Act for 142 members of the Canadian Japanese Association. ^ British subjects wearing the returned soldier's button, to share the full privilege of British citizenship as expressed by the right to vote.
Captain (Ian) Mackenzie, in answer to a question from the Hon. William Sloan asking what effect he expected the granting of such-a request would have on the position of Hindus in British Columbia who had served with the imperial forces, replied that for the time being the great war veterans' association was not so much concerned with the details as with the general principles upon which the plea of the Canadian Japanese association was based.
I wish hon. members would think more of principles to-day than of details. Then listen to this. He goes on to say:
In his opinion these British subjects have vindicated the fundamental essentials of citizenship and an acceptance of that principle lay in the extension of the franchise.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good speech.


Angus MacInnis: I fully agree with Captain Mackenzie, as he was then, because then he accepted and spoke on behalf of t'he principles of democracy. Let me say that the Japanese are no less to-day than they were in 1920. They are the sa.me people, and they have demonstrated that wherever they have been allowed to fight on our side during this war that they can fight bravely. There was a battalion, if that is the proper term, of Japanese Americans who fought with the American army in Italy, and it was the most decorated unit of the American army.
I do not wish at the moment to say much more on this question. I think I have definitely demonstrated that this committee cannot in logic, in justice, or in common sense maintain the position that my hon. friends from British Columbia are trying to maintain.
There was one other peculiar statement made in this debate. It was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, a Canadian who still
Canadian Citizenship

speaks with an English accent; consequently we would expect him to retain some of those principles of democracy that Englishmen usually carry with them, though perhaps not as conspicuously as they should in their dealings with Asiatics. The hon. member for Nanaimo suggested that the proper thing, the Christian thing, I think he said, was to send these people to Japan as missionaries to teach the Japanese our Canadian way of life. Bash a man in the face, kick him in the pants, and then tell him to go back to where he or his ancestors came from and tell his countrymen what a fine fellow you are. Yes, to preach the gospel, as someone behind me suggests, of brotherly love. I suggest to the hon. member, that if he has not done so already, he should read Bruce Hutchison's column on this subject, which appeared I think in the Free Press. Bruce Hutchison is no friend of mine, but I could not have put it better myself.


Mr. PEARKES:: Can the hon. member tell me the page of Hansard that he is referring to? I do not think I have been quite correctly quoted.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot give my hon. friend the page number, but if he will look it up before I sit down, or after I sit down, and if what I have said is not correct, I will apologize humbly. But why delude ourselves with the idea that if we are foolish enough to send Japanese Canadians out of this country, they will be missionaries for our way of life? They will in fact be missionaries for a way of life which is not ours. There may be only a few of them, but the international implications of what we are doing at this time may be of supreme importance-of far more profound importance than the implications of arresting and keeping in detention without trial a few people here; although I am not condoning that act. Asia is a large continent, with an enormous population who have become pretty well tired of the white man's "superiority". Now, with the instruments of war which we have invented and which they can use just as well as we can, it may not be a good thing for the world if we goad them too far. So I suggest that in anything further we have to say in regard to this citizenship bill we try to think of Canadian citizens not according to the colour of their skin, the slant of their eyes, or the country from which they came, but as human beings.


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


Angus MacInnis: I have finished, Mr. Chairman; thank you. But I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Nanaimo to the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has found the page for me, and if you will pardon me I will read the paragraph to which I referred; it is on page 704:
I think from the high Christian point of view now is the opportunity to repatriate the Japanese back to their homeland where perhaps they would be able to introduce to Japan, which has suffered so much, some of the western and Christian ideas that they have learned and in this way raise the standard of the other Japanese. They can do a great missionary work there. If they have not assimilated the ideals of western civilization while they have been here, they never will, and we should send them back.
There is no indication, Mr. Chairman, that the Japanese Canadians have not assimilated the ideals of civilization, but there are disturbing indications that people who talk in that way have not assimilated the ideals of Christian civilization.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment
carry?


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Before the hon. member
speaks, may I remind the committee that they are discussing section 17, the marginal note of which is "By renunciation where dual nationality", together with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The remarks of the last speaker were in order largely because the amendment has probably been introduced to meet certain objections made by hon. members to whom he has referred; but I do not think it is the desire of the committee to enter into a general discussion of the Japanese question,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, yes.


William Ross Macdonald: -and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the section, and more particularly to the question of dual nationality.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I understood that when we arrived at sections 16 and 17 after they were stood over we would have the opportunity to go into this matter which the hon. member for Vancouver East has just brought up; and in view of the very wide latitude which, I must say, you have allowed him, I trust you will allow me some small measure of the same latitude.


Angus MacInnis: Similar latitude is allowed to all other speakers from British Columbia. We are in a preferred class, I imagine.

Canadian Citizenship


John Lambert Gibson: Are you addressing the Chair or are you addressing me?


Angus MacInnis: The Chair, of course.


John Lambert Gibson: The hon, member is talking .into his beard, I imagine.
One of the remarks made by the last speaker was "I do not think that the hon. member for Vancouver South is speaking for British Columbia." Personally I was quite sure that that was the reply that the hon. member for Vancouver South would give to him; but so far as the hon. member for Vancouver East is concerned I am quite certain that he is not speaking for quite a large section of his constituents of Vancouver East. He is probably speaking for the Japanese who resided there formerly, but he certainly is not speaking for the Army and Navy Veterans of that constituency. I have a resolution which was forwarded to me the other day, passed by the Army and 'Navy Veterans, East Vancouver, unit 68, with regard to the Japanese. I do not know whether the hon. member has read this resolution or not. If not, I will bring it to his attention, and it may change his views on the subj ect.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


John Lambert Gibson: I should like to get this on the record; it is well worth while:
Whereas an insidious campaign is being carried on, particularly in eastern Canada, with a view to again inflicting upon the people- of British Columbia the Japanese scourge, from which welcome surcease has been given during the past several years;
And whereas paid press propagandists, subversive political groups and ill-advised religious idealists are raising the false issue of racial prejudice in a determined endeavour to prevent the deporation of the Japanese to their homeland and at the same time advocating the restoration of their former privileges and holdings in this province;
And whereas experience has amply demonstrated that the Japanese in Canada are and have been a fascist-minded, easily regimented, closely integrated group of foreigners, wholly unassimilable. and always a threat to our Canadian way of living, and whether Canadian-born, naturalized or not, have always borne true allegiance to the Emperor of Japan only;
And whereas their return to British Columbia will seriously complicate an already difficult situation and render almost impossible the reestablishment of our ex-servicemen in all lines of small business, fishing, farming and fruit growing:
Be it therefore resolved by this Provincial Command of the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada, in convention assembled, that the dominion government be strongly urged to proceed immediately with the repatriation of all persons of Japanese origin; and, in the alternative, should such be impossible, that the lower mainland and the coastal regions of British Columbia be forthwith declared a defence area, from which
all persons of Japanese origin shall be totally excluded for a period of at least ten years next ensuing:
And that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and to the British Columbia members of parliament.


Angus MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Lambert Gibson: Certainly.


Angus MacInnis: There is a letter accompanying the resolution. Who signed it?


John Lambert Gibson: It is from the army and navy veterans, British Columbia provincial command, signed H. E. Warburton.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend said that it was from Vancouver East. I received a copy and it was from Vancouver, not from Vancouver East. An attempt was made to put over a fast one, I suggest that my hon. friend withdraw the statement that it was from Vancouver East. The people from Vancouver East gave me a majority, and all other candidates lost their deposits. That indicates that they stand by my position.


Mr. MARTIN:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friends, but surely this discussion has not a great deal to do with the question of dual national^. The rules are clear; hon. members ought to confine themselves to the section.


William Ross Macdonald: I believe I made my interpretation of the procedure quite clear a moment ago when I pointed out that we were discussing section 17 with reference to dual nationality, and that all debate should be strictly relevant thereto. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks strictly to the section.


John Lambert Gibson: The
Japanese of course are the largest group of dual nationality citizens we have in Canada. In reply to the hon. member I may say that this resolution was passed and submitted to the provincial command by the Vancouver East unit No. 68. The government has a particularly difficult job on its hands trying to satisfy everyone from British Columbia, but actually, it seems to me, the solution is simple. If they can satisfy one province in confederation with regard to its very simple demand, that the Japanese be excluded for a specified number of years, something that was actually promised, I should think they would leap to that opportunity. The other night when we reached section 46 I offered an amendment which, had it been accepted by the government, would have given us power
Canadian Citizenship,

to keep the Japanese out of the Pacific coast area for the next twenty years. Why the government showed such undue enthusiasm, such unnecessary enthusiasm in getting out Beauchesne's fire extinguisher to put that out, I do not know. As a matter of fact in the election campaign the government was definitely committed on the point that the Japanese would be kept from that coast for a period of years. The undertaking at the time was that they would be kept away in perpetuity, but we are willing to concede a small point in that regard, and this is an opportunity for the government to implement that promise. I am quite sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs would be particularly happy if the promise were carried out.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to express his opinion, but . I cannot see how excluding the Japanese from a certain section of the country has anything to do with the clause under consideration with reference to dual nationality.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, I have suffered from such a ruling three or four times and so have others. I respectfully submit, sir, that if you sit quietly and allow members to spend twenty-five or thirty or forty minutes on a question, presenting one side, and then refuse anyone else in the committee permission to present the other side, you are certainly giving a decision which it is difficult for anyone to understand, and certainly it does not conduce to anything ' like frank, free and fair discussion in the house. If this sort of thing goes on, how can any hon. member answer any point that is made against him? Undoubtedly, from the point of viewT of British Columbia, there is no more urgent question to be discussed at the present time than this one. I am not questioning the ruling, but I certainly think it is time to draw attention to this situation. With all respect I suggest to the chairman that if he wishes to cleave to the rules he should prevent anyone from making any attack and not stop the man who is beginning to defend himself.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Vancouver East has listened to attack after attack, not only upon himself as a member from British Columbia who takes a view opposed to the views held by other members from that province, but upon the party with which he is associated. He waited patiently until the time came when he could reply to those attacks, and I believe you were quite justified in permitting the reply. Now, however, it is a question whether further discussion is to be 
had, and if attacks are made replies will have to be permitted. The chair was quite justified, in my opinion, in allowing the member for Vancouver East to reply when attacks were made upon him. I think the committee will agree that this a fair statement of the case.


Mr. GOLDING:: I would point out that it was thoroughly understood that the member for Vancouver East would have an opportunity to speak on that particular section, and I happened to be in the chair at the time. He did rise to speak on another section, and an amendment was moved and carried and he was not allowed to speak. In all fairness I think he should have been allowed to take advantage of this opportunity to present his case. May I make this further remark. I suggest that the remark made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with reference to the ruling on the amendment was entirely uncalled for. There are rules in this house, and it does not matter who happens to be in the chair, the chair will always, I believe, try to be fair and to stick to the rules. The amendment which the hon. member proposed at that time was completely out of order. I was in the chair at the time and I so ruled, and if I were in the chair again under the same circumstances I would have to give the same ruling. I do not think it is right to speak of "Beauchesne's fire extinguisher"; it is not fair.


William Ross Macdonald: I must agree to a large extent with what has been said by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I would not think of shutting off discussion if I have allowed some hon. member to take advantage of the rules. The hon. gentleman's point is well taken. I must say, however, that it shows the difficulty which arises when an hon. member departs from the rules. It prolongs debate unnecessarily. For that reason I would ask all hon. members to try to abide by the rules. I hesitate to interrupt an hon. member unless it is absolutely necessary, and hon. gentlemen can assist greatly by resolving to abide by the rules, more particularly the rule that all speeches in committee must be relevant to the clause under consideration. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested that the hon. member for Vancouver East had been attacked time and again in the house. If that was so, the hon. member should have risen at the time and not have waited for some other clause to come up before rising to discuss what had taken place days before. I hope that from now on all hon. members will discuss the sections under consideration. The section under consideration at the present time is section 17, which has to do with dual nationality.

Canadian Citizenship


John Lambert Gibson: I thank you for your ruling, and also for the opportunity which you are giving me, and I shall try to abide by your ruling. With regard to the hon. gentleman who was acting as chairman the other night, may I say that if he took exception to the remarks I just made he must have misunderstood what I said. My reference was to what I thought was the great activity that the members of the cabinet displayed that evening. Three of them were in the house, and they displayed considerable interest in what. was going on. So far as his decision is concerned I am certain it was well and fairly given.
With reference to this question of dual nationality, I would point out that the difficulty has arisen from the fact that we cannot get any definite answer from the government. If they would give us an answer "yes" or "no", we would know where we stand. The people of Comox-Alberni believe that the Japanese are going to drift back to British Columbia. Until we have had some word from the government one way or the other I am afraid we shall have to ask them certain questions on every opportunity that presents itself.
There is an excellent precedent of this house for an evasion on the Japanese issue. I had occasion to browse through Hansard of 1908, and I found that there was a long discussion on the Japanese question. At that time we were having trouble with the Japanese in British Columbia. In 1908 the present Prime Minister was deputy minister of labour, and he came out to British Columbia to try to solve the problem. I find from Hansard of January 1908 that the Conservative party of the day was trying to get an answer from the government. The discussion ranged over a few hundred pages of Hansard, but the government was pretty light on its feet at that time too. It is curious to find that a certain Mr. Owen, a member of parliament of that day finally got the minister driven into a comer. He asked this question :
Will the hon. minister tell the house to what extent the Japanese government promised to restrict immigration?
The Hon. Mr. Lemieux, who was postmaster general at that time, said:
My hon. friend is too inquisitive. I will not answer, not from disrespect for him but because if I did answer, I would commit an act unworthy of a Canadian representative, and unworldly of myself.	-
I hope that the government is not going to take the same position at this time. They should have learned somethiug in forty years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are we discussing section 17?


John Lambert Gibson: We shall get along. All that the British Columbia people are asking for is a definite statement. The government, which is just as much responsible to the people of British Columbia as it is to the Japanese citizens, should give that answer. I can tell the committee quite definitely that if Japanese people are allowed to come back to British Columbia there is going to be trouble. This government owes it to our Japanese residents in Canada to protect them to that extent. In my own constituency we had the Pacific coast militia rangers during the war. They did an excellent job of seeing to it that the Japanese did not invade us from the west, and they are equally determined at the present time that we are not going to be invaded from the east. The government should bear that fact in mind, because they owe the Japanese that protection.
I am not going to ask the indulgence of the committee to say any more at this time, but I did intend to say something further on the Japanese question.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a question that, is relevant to the section?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thanks.


Major James William Coldwell: It has to do with something which 'has puzzled me for a long time. I have read the declaration that a prospective citizen of the United States makes when he applies for his first papers. It has always puzzled me how a man who makes that declaration can afterwards be regarded as a Canadian national. I am referring to a subject of His Majesty the King, which, I understand, is the qualification of a British or Canadian citizen or national.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he acquires-


Major James William Coldwell: I have not the phraseology before me. I know it because I have read it a number of times. He forswears all allegiance to every foreign king or potentate, including, if he is a British subject at this time, His Majesty King George VI of the United Kingdom and the British dominions. It seems to me from that point on he forswears his citizenship, and yet if he comes back to Canada he is not required-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not quite right; it is an intention to forswear.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know. It is a pretty strong statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A strong intention.
Canadian Citizenship


Major James William Coldwell: It has always struck
me that it is difficult to reconcile the kind of discussion we have had, for example, on British citizenship, with a statement-even if it is an intention-of that description made by a British citizen, without his making some other declaration after he comes back to this country to show that he is prepared to fulfil his obligations as a Canadian citizen and a subject of His Majesty the King. When I read the bill it struck me that nowhere is that point covered. We have had a long discussion here on the Japanese. We are not talking about the Japanese. I have no sympathy with the Japanese. We are talking about Canadians of Japanese origin. I am a Canadian of British origin; we are all Canadians of some origin. If a Canadian of Japanese origin or of Egyptian origin or of Chinese origin or of any other origin takes an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King and becomes a British subject, we expect him to remain a British subject. If he forswears, or even says be is going to forswear, that allegiance, I think there is some form he should go through in order to restore his citizenship.


Mr. WINKLER:: I agree with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has just said. It is well known that a Canadian who takes out papers for United States citizenship has to swear that he or she is willing to take up arms against Great Britain if necessary. That point should be borne in mind in considering this section.


Mr. ADAMSON:: If we pass section 17 we shall be giving up a great deal of the protection which is afforded to a Canadian as a British subject. A Canadian was, and, I assume and hope, still is to be, considered a British subject, although a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is section 26. We have passed that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: All right. But by section 17 you are doing one of two things. I have objected to sections 16 and 17 on this account. These sections will bring about great difficulty for many Canadians who find themselves citizens with dual nationality. I speak for many thousands who are living in South America to-day. I al,so speak, as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, for the man who has taken out his first papers in the United States and has sworn, not allegiance to the United States constitution, but disavowal of allegiance to His Majesty King George VI. It seems to me that under section 17 a man who has taken out his first citizenship papers in the United States has become stateless.

There is .no other interpretation I can put on this section. In our endeavour to emphasize Canadian citizenship we are throwing away a very valuable thing which we had and have as British citizens. We are British subjects but of Canadian citizenship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This section is an old one; it does not change anything that has not been the law for thirty-four years.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It seems to me that it is subject to an interpretation which jeopardizes our position abroad as British citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not a bit.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. FULTON:: I take it we are now dealing with section 17 as it stood in the original bill and which is now subsection 1 of the new section 17?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister give consideration to a suggestion that the section be amended by striking out the word "if" in the fourth line and inserting the words "unless he renounces nationality or citizenship of that country" and striking out the words "and still such a national or citizen, a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship." The section would then read:
Where a natural-born Canadian citizen, at his birth or during his minority, or any Canadian citizen on marriage, became or becomes under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country, unless he renounces nationality or citizenship of that country he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
That I think could cover the cases such as we have in Canada at the present time whereby an act, such as the registration of a person's birth with the Japanese consul, gives a person the nationality of another state.
While I am on my feet I wonder if I might be permitted to refer briefly to what has occurred in connection with these Japanese. I think a study of Hansard will show that the cases we are referring to are those which were the subject matter of this order in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. I am prepared to deal with the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I do not want to get into a discussion of the Japanese. Surely we have dealt with that matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor do I.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am prepared to deal with my hon. friend's suggestion, unless he wants to go on to discuss it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I mentioned the Japanese
in order to illustrate the importance, as I conceive it, of this amendment. Last night

Canadian Citizenship
the minister stated that under our law as it stands at present the dual nationality of a Japanese citizen is recognized. While I am on this subject I should like to clear up a certain matter. At one point last night I interjected a remark that the minister had said that according to our law they were not citizens of Canada. I find upon studying Hansard that the minister did not say that. I wish to assure him that it was not my intention to put words into his mouth, but in the heat of debate I understood him to say that.
The importance of this amendment can be illustrated by the present situation of the Japanese in British Columbia which has given rise to so much discussion in this house. The position which has been taken by us is that the government's action in December would be wholly objectionable and our case against the Japanese would be unfounded were it not a fact that the Japanese possess this dual nationality. Our stand is further supported by the fact that the Japanese in question have actually renounced their Canadian nationality and status, which I think removes the inconsistency which has been alleged so violently by the hon. member for Vancouver East. However, respecting your ruling, sir, I shall not deal further with that subject.
I repeat the contention which we have made from the outset, that it is important, and it has been proved by this bill to be important, to have the status of these Japanese cleared up and decided before the bill becomes law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The suggestion of the hon. member amounts to compulsory renunciation in the case of dual nationality, and I regret to say that I cannot accept that. The hon. member for Vancouver South was kind enough to bring the same point to my attention this morning, and thus give me an opportunity to reconsider something which we have considered in the preparation of the bill. First of all, no country has legislation in exactly that form. Under the laws of certain countries there can be no loss of nationality no matter what act of divesting takes place, and the result would be that we might place an individual in a rather difficult position.
There is a further consideration. If you were to compel renunciation, say in the case of a Canadian-born woman who acquires another nationality by marriage under the law of another country, you would deprive her of something which she may wish to retain and which, because of the laws of another country, she can do nothing about
because of the compulsory feature. I think that administratively it would be impossible, and on principle I do not think it is desirable.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister has mentioned the matter I discussed with him this morning. He will remember I suggested that he take power under the bill to require an election where a person has two or more nationalities. Probably that power would not need to be exercised very often, but I think it would be well worth while to have it set out in the bill, so that where some condition arises under which it would be wise to find out just what the allegiance of a person is, the Secretary of State could do so. Has he given consideration to the suggestion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I have tried to deal with it in the reply that I made.


Mr. FLEMING:: The cases referred to by the Secretary of State are cases of involuntary nationality, and one can see a reason for the position taken by the minister where that second nationality is possessed or acquired in that way. I know it is the practice of some European and certain Asiatic countries to insist that a subject shall never lose his nationality no matter what he does. Is not there some room for the provision for or reservation of an election as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South, to cover those whose second nationality is not acquired involuntarily in that way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I can add anything more.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Attention has been drawn to the dual nationality of certain Canadian citizens of Japanese origin, acquired by the registration of their births by their parents with the Japanese consul. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether a Japanese consul now resides in Vancouver and is functioning in his office.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: God forbid.


James Herbert Matthews: I did not know the hon. member over there was the Secretary of State. My second question is this: Are the Canadian bom children of Japanese parents being registered at the present time with any Japanese official?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know anything about the last question, but answering the first question I will say that there is no such person in Canada. Canada was and technically may still be at war with Japan.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 45-Acts repealed.
Canadian Citizenship
William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has moved: that the section be amended by numbering the present clause No. 1 and by adding thereto the following section as subsection 2:
(2) Where, in any act of the parliament of Canada or any order or regulation ma.de thereunder, any provision is made applicable in respect of
(a)	a "natural-born British subject" it shall apply in respect of a "natural-born Canadian citizen," or
(b)	a "naturalized British subject" it shall apply in respect of a "Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen" or
(c)	a "Canadian national" it shall apply in respect of a "Canadian citizen," under this act and where in any act, order or regulation aforesaid any provision is made in respect of the status of any such person as a Canadian national or British subject it shall apply in respect of his status as a Canadian citizen or British subject under this act.


Howard Charles Green: Is this amendment offered primarily to make certain that the bill we are now considering shall not invalidate in any way the measures taken by the government to carry out the Japanese policy announced by the Prime Minister last December?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This amendment is introduced to cover that point, and to cover any other statutes, any other orders which in any way might affect the subject matter of this bill. This matter does not invalidate or validate the measures mentioned.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, may I ask the Secretary of State a question, then? Will support for this section in the bill, and therefore for the bill itself, be support for the policy laid down in the orders in council which are referred to in this particular amendment? If so, so far as We are concerned we shall oppose the bill, and oppose it strenuously.
I should like to have an answer to that question, because the answer given to the hon. member for Vancouver South would indicate, by inference, that those of us who are opposed to what is suggested to be done with loyal persons of Japanese origin, are in agreement. Let me point out that no charge has ever been laid against many of those people, and we are not going to support a measure which can be construed subsequently as validating what we believe to be an act of injustice toward many people.
If the government wishes to deport people who are guilty of sedition or guilty of disloyalty to this country, well and good-if they are not Canadian citizens. But if they are Canadian citizens, then proceed against them according to the laws of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say-
(Mr. Marlin.]


Major James William Coldwell: But do not go about it in this way. I want to be clear on that, because it is important to us. As has been said, we have for years taken a point of view which has been unpopular. We still take it, believing that ultimately the ideals of right and justice which are behind our position will prevail.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I answer in this way, that what I have already said in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South, and what I said the other night in the house, clearly inidcate that the intention behind this subsection is not that of in any way affecting any existing order, one way or another. We are not dealing with the merits or demerits of the particular orders in council the hon. member has in mind. My statement the other evening clearly indicates that. The matter is not affected, one way or the other. We are not dealing with the merits of the particular problem to which attention has been called.


Major James William Coldwell: But it is related to this other problem, according to the answer given by the Secretary of State.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it does not affect those orders one way or another. This measure does not deal with the merits of that particular question, which is now before the courts.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If this amendment were not in the bill, what effect would the orders in council have?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think it would affect them at all, and I said so when the matter was first discussed. However the law officers of the crown point out to me that there was some doubt in connection with the application of certain statutes. And since a question had been raised as to the relationship between this measure and certain orders, it seemed best to make it clear that the measure in no way affected those other orders. So I can only repeat that the merits or demerits one way or another of those particular orders are not affected in any way by intention, implication or direction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does it not go farther than that? Not only are the merits not affected, but the provisions of the orders are not affected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the whole purpose of the amendment was to remove any doubt affecting those particular orders.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.

Government Companies


Donald Methuen Fleming: So that it is perfectly
proper for any hon. member, notwithstanding his view as to the propriety of the orders, or the principle in them, to support the amendment; because all he is saying is that in a general bill of this kind there will be no application to those orders.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I wished to bring that point out. That was why I asked the question. I am quite satisfied with that position.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the indulgence of the committee just for a moment. This has been a long discussion, and I am not complaining by any means. In a bill of this kind I believe a thorough discussion is most desirable. This is a bill having great implications, because of the type of subject with which it deals. But as a junior minister who has piloted thus far his first bill through second reading and the committee stage, may I say that I am truly grateful to the committee for its forbearance and its understanding of my shortcomings.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the Secretary of State has done a good job.
Bill reported.



GOVERNMENT COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the operation and financing of government companies, to define their status as agents to His Majesty, and to provide further for the superannuation, pension or other rights of the employees of such companies.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with this business, may I point out that last night when the question was asked as to what the business for to-day would be, the following reply was given:
Mr. Mackenzie:	To-morrow we shall take up
Bill No. 7 at the commencement of the proceedings. After the conclusion of that measure we shall take up any second readings of the minor bills on the order paper.
This order of business is not a bill; it is a resolution. We are not in a position to deal with it to-day, because the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated last night that
other business would be taken up this afternoon.	Therefore we must ask that the
measure be not proceeded with at this time. It is a most important one, and we must have proper notice before debate takes place.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, last night, of course, I intended to refer to any other business on the order paper. Probably I was not specific enough. In any event, this is only a resolution, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal when the bill is introduced.


Howard Charles Green: There are many hon. members in the official opposition who, had they known this matter was to be debated to-day, would have been here to take part in such debate. I must object to the government's making promises, and then breaking them the following day. If these statements made at adjournment each evening concerning the following day's business are to have any value, they must be followed.
There are on the order paper many bills which could be given second reading to-day, and the government should carry out the promise it gave last night.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In that connection
may I reply that, except by way of courtesy, there is no such thing as necessity for any promise in regard to the business of the following day. I tried, and I intend to continue to try, to meet the wishes of hon. members opposite as far as possible. But there is no obligation whatsoever upon the government, and never has been, except in a general way, to announce in detail the business for the following day. Ministers have business to attend to outside the house which sometimes necessitates changes in the order of business here.


John Bracken: I have understood that when the acting leader of the house tells us what the next day's business will be the order announced will be followed. If now we can place no faith in these statements we shall know what value to put on them in future. All I wish to say at the moment is that we on this side are not prepared to proceed with this resolution, or with the other resolution this afternoon, for the reason that neither had been announced. [DOT]
On Friday night the acting leader of the house announced that a certain motion would come up for discussion yesterday. That was proceeded with. Last night there was no announcement that this particular resolution would be proceeded with to-day. If the decision is that it will be proceeded with to-day I can only say that we are not prepared to discuss it at this time.

Government Companies


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend insists on taking that position I shall not feel compelled to announce the business for the following day, but naturally I wish to cooperate with the leaders of all parties. Sometimes the order of business has to be changed on very short notice. You cannot always have rigid control over the whole business of the house. You can only try to make the closest possible approach to it. I have frequently met the leaders of the various groups and given them all the information I had regarding the business for the next day, and then next morning something arises to necessitate a change in the order of business.


John Bracken: We knew nothing of this resolution coming up until a few minutes ago.


Howard Charles Green: The minister announced last night that we would take up to-day any second readings of minor bills on the order paper. There are on the order paper for second reading Bill No. 9, to amend the Navigable Waters' Protection Act; Bill No. 10, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways; Bill No. 14, to amend the Export Act; Bill No. 16, respecting the manufacture, testing, storage and importation of explosives; Bill No. 15, to amend the criminal code (race meetings); Bill No. 54, to amend the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942; Bill No. 17, respecting the marking of articles containing gold, silver or platinum; Bill No. 29, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929; Bill No. 56, to amend the Naval Service Act, 1944; Bill No. 57, to amend the Royal Canadian Air Force Act; Bill No. 61, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act; Bill No. 62, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act; Bill No. 63, respecting the boundaries of certain national parks-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order in regard to procedure.


Howard Charles Green: There is only one more second reading on the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An item was called by you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask if it is in order for the hon. member to discuss every other item?


William Ross Macdonald: The discussion has not been strictly in order. There is a motion before the house that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a certain resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the leader of the house changed the order of business at my request. There happens to be an important air conference in Montreal start-
IjMr. Bracken.]
ing on Monday next which will require my presence there for some two weeks, with perhaps a break here and there. The railway committee is now sitting, and I feel it necessary to spend a day or two' there in connection with Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is for that reason that I asked the privilege of advancing this resolution one stage to-day. I had hoped that the discussion would come on the bill, and not on the resolhtion. The resolution is rather a colourless statement of the contents of the bill. But since there has been objection to proceeding with the resolution to-day, I suggest that I be allowed to make my statement, and then any member of the opposition can adjourn the debate. That would help me a little. I am fairly busy just now, and I do not like to prepare a statement of this kind several times. I am afraid that if I go away for two weeks without making my statement now, I shall have to prepare it all over again.


John Bracken: If the acting leader of the house had communicated that to us we would have been only too glad1 to accede to the minister's request. We have never objected to the procedure that the leader of the house has suggested, but we never heard of this resolution coming up to-day until three minutes ago. The suggestion just now made by the Minister of Reconstruction is most acceptable to us.


Major James William Coldwell: It is rather a pity that we did not know before about this resolution coming up, but after all it is proposed to advance the resolution only one stage and there will be ample opportunity for debate when the bill is before us. I think we should try to free the minister by hearing his statement this afternoon and then the debate could be adjourned. On another occasion, however, I will join with the leader of the opposition in expressing the hope that the leader of the house will get in touch with the party leaders before the house meets in the afternoon if there is to be any change in the announced business.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that it is the desire of the house that I put the motion, and that in committee of the whole the minister will make a statement.


Howard Charles Green: On the understanding that after he has made his statement the debate will be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It is understood that the resolution is not to be reported to-day but that there will be an opportunity to consider the matter further. Is that correct?

Government Companies


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have said that I have no objection to any member adjourning the debate if he wishes to do so after I have made my statement, but of course I should be glad to have the resolution advanced one stage if that were agreeable. I am in the hands of the committee after I make my statement, which will be short.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the resolution, and of the bill that will be based upon it, is to provide legislation to govern the conduct of crown companies. There are a-number of crown companies which were established during the war years, which have now been liquidated, or are in process of liquidation, but there are three which will, I think, continue for a considerable period, and two others which will require to continue for a time at least.
During the war, some thirty-one crown companies were incorporated under part I of the Companies Act, 1934, to carry out special projects. Some of these companies, such as Polymer Corporation Limited and Canadian Arsenals Limited, will continue their operations for a considerable period. It may also be desirable, where statutory authority exists, to incorporate similar companies to carry out other special projects.
The present bill is intended to provide for the financing of such companies and in particular to enable them to use operating revenue to pay operating costs, and to enable emergency requirements for funds to be mef; to define their status as agents of His Majesty; to make the usual provisions as to superannuation and other rights of civil servants who become employees of the company; to authorize the companies to set up pension and other welfare plans for employees who are not under the Civil Service Superannuation Act; to provide expressly for the application of the Government Employees Compensation Act to employees of the companies; and to provide for the making of annual and other reports by the companies.
Crown companies were an invention of the Department of Munitions and Supply in the early days of the war to provide a method for carrying out duties which could only be carried out with difficulty by the staff of the department. Hon. members will appreciate that, at the commencement of the war, the Department of Munitions and Supply had no staff. It was a newly created department, and it acquired its staff by going out into the highways and byways and inducing men with high patriotic purpose, men of skill and
experience, to leave their civilian occupations and join the service of the government for the period of the war.
One of the first problems encountered was the establishment of a chemicals and explosives industry in this country adequate for war. Obviously the first and paramount requirement of war is an adequate supply of ammunition and explosives. We had a chemical industry in this country and that chemical industry was used to the full, but, in addition to that, it was necessary to establish new sources of supplies for chemicals, and to establish large-scale plants for the manufacture of explosives. A very large construction problem was involved,-ultimately requiring an expenditure of more than $100 million for new construction of chemical and explosive plants.
It seemed obvious to the department that it must enlist men of great ability to carry out that programme,-men who were able to command the special skills which would be required to make the programme a success. In looking about for ways and means of organizing that programme, the department hit upon the plan of organizing a crown corporation. Thus Allied War Supplies Limited became the first of the administrative type of crown companies.
Allied War Supplies Limited is now in process of liquidation, having carried out its obligations; and we can look back on the operation of that company with a good deal of pride. It built some magnificent plants; it produced chemicals and explosives in excess of the programme set for it; the work was ' carried out at reasonable cost; every obligation was met; and after war requirements ceased considerable earnings were obtained by sale of products produced by the plants, which helped in liquidating the cost of the projects; in fact several very expensive projects have been liquidated by the sale of the product into peace-time world markets. I shall be glad to go into that operation in more detail when the bill is before the house. I mention the work of Allied War Supplies Limited at this time as an example of the purpose of the crown companies and the manner in which that work was carried out.
Crown companies divide themselves into three classes. The first class includes the administrative and supervisory companies. Allied was in that class. It did not directly operate plants, but it supervised their building, arranged for the operation of the plants, and handled the sale of the product, A number of crown companies were in that class. In
Government Companies

[DOT] second class were the manufacturing companies. We found as the war proceeded that it was necessary to increase the manufacture of certain products beyond the capacity of private industry to provide the service, and certain plants were built and operated directly by the government, through crown companies, to manufacture certain products. Research Enterprises Limited is an example of that class of plant. Another is Small Arms Limited, which produced vast quantities of small arms such as rifles and Sten guns. There are several other examples of crown companies established for the purpose of actually manufacturing.
Then there was the third class of companies, companies engaged in merchandising certain raw materials and in providing stockpiles sufficient to assure adequate supplies for war and civilian purposes. An example is Melbourne Merchandising company, which purchased the wool requirements of the country, stock-piled the wool and made it available to manufacturers during the war period. That company is now being liquidated. Another is Fairmont company, which performed the same duty in relation to rubber and allied products. A third is Wartime Me'tals, which was charged with the duty of keeping on hand an ample supply of metals not obtainable in Canada, such as tin and manganese. This company also undertook the expansion from Canadian sources of rare metals such as chrome, molybdenite, tungsten," mercury, and provided from Canadian sources sufficient supplies to meet all requirements during the war period. This company, Wartime Metals, is now fully liquidated.
One of the inducements for adopting the crown company plan was that it permitted men with business responsibilities of their own to give a good deal of their time to the government, in executive positions associated with a form of administration with which they were wholly familiar. The corporation is an accepted unit of Canadian business. Corporate practice is well understood'by those engaged in private business. The corporate system of accounting is also well understood and has been highly perfected through experience over the years. Therefore, to bring into being a form of organization which was readily understood, to make it sufficiently flexible so that the head office could be established in a location mo9t convenient to those men whom we wished to attract to the business, and to secure other advantages which appealed to us at the time, were the
rMr. Howe.]
determining factors which led us to carry out a number of war operations through the agency of crown companies.
The crown companies during the war years were carried on in part under the War Measures Act and were financed from the war appropriation. The finances of each company were carefully segregated. I shall be glad to give the house, when the bill is before us, a financial statement on any one of the thirty-one operations which were carried out through crown companies. Each company was expected so to conduct its business that it would not be operating in red ink. In other words, each crown company was carrying out a business operation and it was expected so to conduct its business that receipts would at least cover expenditures.
Some of these companies have been amazingly successful. As far as war work was concerned, they sold to the Canadian government and to our allies at cost, but there were certain transactions outside the purely war field which were carried on at a profit. Many of the crown companies were wound up having considerable balances on the profit side, all of which were turned over to the crown in the form of a final dividend, or alternatively were used to reduce the cost of the product to the crown. The administrative companies had no direct means of obtaining revenues even though their business was carried out in such a manner that the plants whose administration they directed were themselves profitable. The administrative companies would show chargeable to them the cost of administration without offset of earnings. In order to determine the results of companies of that type, it would be necessary to look beyond the balance sheet of the company management itself, and examine the balance sheet of the plants which it built and administered. The breakdown there is in some cases difficult to arrive at, but I think I shall be able to satisfy the house as to the results that were obtained by companies of an administrative type.
Of the thirty-one companies, seventeen have ceased operation and are either wound up or very nearly so; nine are in process of winding up, and only five are still active. The five companies that are still active are Canadian Arsenals Limited, Polymer Corporation Limited, Park Steamships Limited, Wartime Housing Limited, and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. Of these five I anticipate that Canadian Arsenals, the Polymer Corporation and Eldorado Mining and Refining will continue as crown companies for many years to come. I also anticipate that the Park

Government Companies
steamships company and Wartime Housing will be w'ound up within the next three or four years at the maximum.
We are now asking that the crown company organization be formalized. In doing so we are making provision for a form of organization that has its own uses in the work of government, particularly as the work of government becomes more complex. I quite agree that the work of crown companies should be examined by a parliamentary committee from year to year. The war expenditures committee was charged with that function during the war years, and it may be that a committee similar to the committee on railways and shipping, government-owned, or perhaps the same committee, should examine the accounts of the crown companies from year to year. However, the books of all crown companies are kept by treasury officers of the government, and all accounts and transactions are audited by the auditor general of Canada, so that members of the house can feel every assurance that the creation of a crown company does not in any way weaken the ordinary safeguards that apply to government business.
One difficulty in analysing government-owned business in general is the government's method of bookkeeping. It is a simple method of bookkeeping. Everything that is paid out by the treasury is charged up as expenditures from a government appropriation and everything that is received is entered on the books as revenue. In a business, it is difficult to provide incentives with that kind of bookkeeping. Unless the corporation can be charged with its expenditures, and has to account for those expenditures, and at the same time receives credit for its income, and be expected to have the income side in excess over the expenditure side and be required to answer questions to a parliamentary committee if the reverse is the case, I think we lose a good deal in incentive to the personnel that is carrying on that particular government business.
The bill that will be based on this resolution provides for the normal corporation accounting for crown companies. I think that is an important feature of the measure. It also makes provision for the welfare of the employees of crown companies. These men are not civil servants, unless they have been transferred to the company from the permanent civil service. In cases where they have been transferred, the bill makes provision for their civil service protection to be continued. In the case of employees recruited outside the civil service, the bill provides for the benefits that are usual in similar private undertakings.
The bill has been carefully drawn. It is simple in form, and contains only those provisions that are required for the normal business of the corporation. At the same time, I believe the bill contains all the safeguards that parliament will require. However, hon. members can judge that for themselves when the bill is brought down, and I shall be glad to reserve for that occasion anything more I have to say.


John Bracken: I have just two questions to ask the minister. His resolution states that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the operation and financing of government companies, which the minister has referred to as crown companies. I presume this measure is made necessary because the companies were set up under the War Measures Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Companies Act.


John Bracken: And now they are continued under the emergency powers legislation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were set up under the dominion Companies Act, part I. They were operated to some extent under the War Measures Act, and were financed from the war appropriations voted by parliament. Therefore, since there are no more war appropriations, it is desirable that separate provision be made for finances and for operating method.


John Bracken: That brings me to the point of my first question. If some legislation of this kind was not needed before, what is the special need for it now? Perhaps the minister will make that clear after I am through.
The other question is this. One of the purposes of the measure is said to be to define the status of these crown companies as agents to His Majesty and to provide further for the superannuation, pension or other rights of the employees of such companies. I had gathered from the resolution that these companies were not to be permanent institutions. Apparently they are either temporary or semi-temporary institutions. Would the minister explain why it is necessary to provide for superannuation, pension and so on in crown companies that, so far as we know, are intended only to be short-lived? There must be some thought that they will be long-lived institutions. These are the two points I had in mind to ask about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the first point, the particular need is to provide a method of financing for the companies. During the war the funds required by the companies were withdrawn from the war appropriation that
Government Companies

had been voted by parliament, and the receipts of the company were paid into the consolidated revenue fund. The companies had no right to retain in their possession funds beyond those required for operating. In other words, the companies worked on appropriations and paid their surplus funds into the consolidated revenue fund. This bill will enable each company to accumulate from its earnings the funds which can be used for the expenses of the company and would be held for that purpose to the extent of operational requirements.


John Bracken: The effect is to remove them still farther from parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; to bring them closer, if you like. The method of bookkeeping proposed is much easier for parliament to check than the method in the usual government accounting. I think that fact will appear when we examine the bill.
As regards the permanency of the companies, we have continuing operations that in my judgment will be better continued under an organization of this type. One is the Polymer Corporation, a vast chemical plant built for the manufacture of synthetic rubber to meet emergent war needs. It was built at a cost of about $50 million. In addition to the manufacture of rubber, certain byproducts of the process are being sold as a basis for a great separate organic chemical industry. Already two or three important privately owned chemical plants are either in operation or are being constructed to purchase by-products of the Polymer plant. The Polymer operation is a tremendous undertaking, and I think it would be folly to attempt the operation without using a corporate form for the enterprise.


Howard Charles Green: That is a new crown company which is in contemplation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the Polymer Corporation was created to build and operate the synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia.


Howard Charles Green: The minister spoke about a new chemical company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Polymer Corporation built its plant and has operated it for the past three years.


Howard Charles Green: The new chemical developments mentioned are to be carried on by Polymer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; these are private developments. They will purchase as their new material certain by-products resulting from the preparation of the material for the Polymer process which were surplus to the require-

ments of the Polymer. These are becoming the basis of a substantial organic chemical industry in the same area. Private expansion in the organic chemical field will continue, I believe, and should the requirements of synthetic rubber be curtailed at any time it would prove to be a way of saving the government's investment by providing a market for the products that are at present the base materials for synthetic rubber.
Another crown company that will continue is the Dominion Arsenals Limited. Before the war, it was the practice to operate the arsenals as a branch of government. All the employees were civil servants, and the operations were carried on by civil service practice. An appropriation was made by parliament to cover the expenditures and any receipts were paid into the consolidated revenue fund. At present the arsenals are being operated as a crown company. There is a reasonable chance that the earnings of the arsenals will pay their operating expenses, and that an appropriation from parliament from year to year will not be needed, which will certainly be a welcome change in the pre-war arsenal situation. I shall be glad to explain the composition of Dominion Arsenals when we consider the bill. I believe that present arrangements are a great improvement in the method of operating continuing dominion government arsenals between wrars.
A third company that should continue in corporate form is Eldorado Mining and Refining. This is a mining operation in a remote area in the northwest territories. It is one of the world's great suppliers of uranium and radium.


Mr. COCKERAM:: What about their outside properties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the Eldorado properties are owned by the Eldorado Corporation. This is the third corporation under the Companies Act which I think will be a continuing operation, at least as long as it is desirable the production of uranium be under strict government control.
I might explain the difference between a crown company referred to in this bill and other government companies. For example. War Assets Corporation is not a corporation under the Qompanies Act; it is a corporation created by act of parliament. That is the only company associated with the Department of Munitions and Supply, that is not a company under the Companies Act. This bill does not refer to the operation of War Assets Corporation.

Government Companies


John Bracken: Then the minister's
answer is that it is intended that at least three crown companies shall continue more or less indefinitely?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Bracken: So far as we are concerned at the moment we can look upon them as semi-permanent, or perhaps permanent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that would be the
intention.


John Bracken: The minister did not answer the question with respect to superannuation and pensions. If the government intends that some of these companies shall be permanent or long-lived I can understand that provision would need to be made for that kind of thing, but my impression was that these companies were only temporary in nature. I wondered, therefore, why it was necessary to have plans for superannuation and pension. Does the minister propose to give these companies power to make their own plans for superannuation and pension?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The companies will be charged with the duty of formulating plans, but the plans must be approved by the government through order in council before they can be adopted by the company. The government has control over the appointment of personnel, salaries of personnel and matters such as superannuation and pension plans in the present regulations governing the company.
The need for a reasonable superannuation and pension plan will be apparent in the case of Polymer. Polymer is located alongside the Imperial Oil refinery at Sarnia. The type of employee is much the same as the type of employee of the Imperial Oil refinery. Hon. members are no doubt aware that Imperial Oil has an advanced policy in the matter of superannuation and benefits to its employees. It would hardly be practical for the government to carry on a similar operation alongside without having some plan of a corresponding nature. The same is true of the arsenals. In my opinion the number of civil servants in the arsenals should be reduced rather than expanded, and protection afforded by means of an adequate retirement and benefit plan. The same is true also of Eldorado.


John Bracken: Does the minister anticipate that more than the three companies he has mentioned will be of a permanent nature?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department over which I preside has plans for only the three companies mentioned, although two other companies will require at least two or three years to liquidate their obligations.


Howard Charles Green: Which ones are they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Park Steamships is one and Wartime Housing is another.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Will these social security plans be the same for all three companies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily. The needs of different industries vary and each industry has its own pattern for social security. In some industries it may be desirable to have an earlier retiring age than in others, and other industries may require a different type of benefit. It has been the practice to permit the management to work out its benefit plan with its employees, and the companies have not been held to a standard pattern.


Mr. McKAY:: Has the minister any figures as to the number of employees in each of these corporations? I am concerned at the moment only with the Polymer Corporation, Dominion Arsenals and Eldorado.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend permit me to give that information on the next occasion this matter is considered?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a couple of questions to ask, but before doing so I wish to bring something to the attention of the committee. I would not like to see what took place in connection with this debate become a precedent. Before Mr. Speaker left the chair the hon. member for Eglinton was on his feet and he certainly had the right to speak. He tried to speak but Mr. Speaker simply left the chair. The rights of hon. members should be respected and any hon. member who wants to rise to his feet to speak should be permitted to do so. Before we vote money on anything like this we should have an opportunity to have Mr. Speaker in the chair. I just bring that up in passing.
In connection with the Polymer Corporation, I should like to know the price per pound at which synthetic rubber is selling. I should also like to know if the plants of Dominion Arsenals are to be operated as pilot plants for experimental work. If so, how does the minister expect to make a profit? Perhaps he can give this information later on when the bill is before the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My recollection is that synthetic rubber sells at 20J cents a pound.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How does that compare with the price of natural rubber?
Government Companies


Clarence Decatur Howe: Natural rubber has been selling for 45 cents a pound but I think the price of new importations is 24 cents a pound f.o.b. Malaya. I presume that would permit it to be laid down in Canada for about 30 cents a pound, or perhaps a little less. I am sure of the price at which synthetic rubber is selling but I am giving the other figures from memory.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will our Canadian plant be able to compete in the future with the "supplies of natural rubber?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fact that the government owns a synthetic rubber plant will not be used to deprive anyone from the privilege of purchasing natural rubber. Natural rubber is brought in without duty, and there is no obstacle to trade.
In my opinion nothing should interfere with the right of Canadian industry to purchase either synthetic or natural rubber. At the moment, even though the synthetic rubber plant is producing considerably in excess of its rated capacity, it is unable to supply the demands of Canadian industry. When the plant was built, it was tailored to meet war requirements, which we believed would be about double peace-time requirements, but the fact is that the full capacity of the plant is being used to meet peace-time requirements, just as it was used during the war years to meet war-time requirements. There is no indication on the horizon that there will be any change in the situation, at least for two years. Reports indicate that the natives in the jungle seem to have wakened up to the fact that they can'sell their labour for money, and it seems doubtful whether they will be prepared to produce rubber for the low wages that prevailed in pre-war days.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just what is proposed in connection with the Canadian arsenals? Are these plants to be operated as pilot plants for experimental work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plants of Dominion
Arsenals were never primarily experimental plants. They produce the requirements of the army in times of peace. Their work consisted partly of the overhaul of equipment, partly of the development of new equipment and partly of the replacement of wastage caused by the wear and tear of army manoeuvres in time of peace. As I have said, in former days an appropriation was voted for Dominion Arsenals and any work was charged against that appropriation until it was exhausted.
It is now proposed that Dominion Arsenals will charge the army, the navy and the air force for the work allocated to each arsenal.
[Mt. D. G. Ross.]
The work will carry with it a price, just as it did in war-time, and it is expected that the tvork performed in the arsenals will provide sufficient revenue to pay the expenses of operating. For instance, one arsenal plant is now producing ammonia nitrate fertilizer and selling it in the world market. It is also producing other chemicals which are being sold at a profit, and the total profits on this one operation are at present well over $1,000,000 a year, which is quite a contribution toward the cost of carrying the entire arsenals programme.
Another arsenal plant is engaged in overhauling 25-poundet guns for the army. That is an army contract which carries with it the same price it would have carried in wartime. The revenue the arsenal is drawing from that price will also help to carry the cost of the arsenal programme. Similarly, orders for ammunition are placed from time to time; perhaps not just at the present time, but they have been for years and doubtless will be again. That ammunition will be sold at a reasonable commercial price, and there again the proceeds will go into the arsenal fund.
It is my hope-perhaps it is rather a bold hope at this time, or until such time as we have more experience-that the work performed by the arsenals, paid for at reasonable commercial rates, will provide sufficient revenue to cover all costs of the arsenals, and perhaps provide a surplus which can be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: While this resolution would appear to be a most innocuous one, I submit it represents an unusual advance in the direction of the government's going into business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I note that there is applause from the C.C.F corner of the house, indicating that the minister will get support from that direction-


Clarence Decatur Howe: And I hope from the Social Credit corner.


John George Diefenbaker: -in the stand
which he has taken. I suggest that at some time during the discussion on the resolution the minister should let the country know to what extent the government intends to carry into effect a policy of that kind, or of going into or continuing in business in competition with private industry.
If the government is going into business, has consideration been given to the fact that it should accept the responsibilities ordinarily accepted by private industry? Has con-

Government Companies
sideration been given to the removal of the principle which has been in effect for many hundreds of years, namely that the crown cannot be sued. If the government is going into business, through the setting up of crown companies, in any bill introduced provision should be made so that suit can be brought against such companies, in the same way as against private industry.
Then, if the government is going into business should the ancient principle, that which states that because a company is a crown company it should not be subject to municipal or other taxation, be continued? If the government is going into competition with private business, or if it is going to operate industry by itself, should it depart from what is ordinarily accepted to be the ambit of government operations?
Is it not time to place in this measure a provision permitting that crown companies be sued, and that they be placed on an equality with corporations operated privately by their being required to make payments of taxation.
I suggest that the minister should reply to these points, because they are of peculiar importance at this time, owing to the fact that apparently the government has decided, in days of peace, to carry into effect a system of crown companies which operated in time of war. The minister has pointed out that they operated successfully in war time and that, generally speaking, they returned a profit. One can understand that. But we are now in days of peace, and we know that all crown corporations have not in the past returned profits. The fact that they are crown corporations does not necessarily establish any assumption that they will be successfully operated for the benefit of the public. I mention only one company-and I shall not discuss its affairs in detail-but if there is any corporation in the country criticized to-day, then certainly that corporation is War Assets Corporation. The people as a whole find it difficult to get any replies from it, and on many occasions to get service from it. Indeed, as someone suggests to me, even members of parliament experience the same difficulty; and that is a condition which I believe is general on all sides of the house.
I should appreciate the minister's outlining generally the adoption of any new type of policy by the government, so that the committee and the country will know just to what extent the government has decided to adopt socialistic principles at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was called a socialist in the early days of the war, and now I am called a capitalist because I am liquidating socialized organizations. We built some government-operated plants, to a value of nearly S900 million. During the last few years we have liquidated the larger portion, as far as government ownership and operation are concerned.
We would be glad to sell the Polymer Corporation to private industry, if private industry would buy it. We built it to serve a great national need, particularly to serve a war need. It has been a successful undertaking, and is now operating at a substantial profit. It has already paid back in profits some $10 million of the $50 million. We are selling rubber at the ceiling price. We are prepared to meet competition for some time to come. However, I believe the manufacture of synthetic rubber by the government of Canada is for the general advantage of Canadian business. I have yet to hear any business man suggest it was not a good thing for Canadian business to have Canada's only source of rubber in the hands of the government, rather than in the hands of a private corporation.
The government has no intention of going into business unnecessarily. Occasions have arisen in the past where it was important and, I suggest, imperative, that the government go into business on a very large scale. Such occasions may occur again, and if they do I hope the government of that day will be bold enough to meet the situation. This fetish, in the minds of some people, that everything is wrong that is private industry, and in the minds of others that everything is wrong that is public industry, is a most ridiculous situation. Fortunately I am a Liberal, and hold no such theories. I regret to observe that my hon. friends across the way seem to be divided into groups that are unanimous, either on one side or on the other.
Might I remind hon. members that in a speech on March 31, 1943, Mr. Churchill offered the following observation:
If we act with comradeship and loyalty to our country and to one another, and if we can make state enterprise and free enterprise both serve the national interest, and pull the wagon side by side, there is no need to fear.


John Bracken: Is Mr. Churchill a
Liberal?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He was at one time, he was in former days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Like my hon. friend.

Government Companies


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister available financial statements of crown companies in a shape which would permit of their being placed on Hansard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should think that would not be possible. There are thirty-one companies, and the statements of some of them are involved. It may be that an abbreviated statement would mean but little.
However, I would be glad to put on Hansard a statement of any one company, and perhaps I may be able to meet the request of my hon. friend in full.


Howard Charles Green: Could they be laid on the table ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall try to have them in such shape that they can be, but they are not in that shape at the present time. I have before me the latest financial statements from each of the companies. I am having prepared final statements of companies which have been wound up, and interim statements of others.
Perhaps at this stage I might ask hon. members whether they wish me to continue at nine o'clock. Some objection was taken earlier.


Howard Charles Green: We would like to have an opportunity to go over the statement that has been made, and then we would be prepared to go on with the resolution on another day.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
SECOND READINGS	'
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Ruby Rosina Burnett Walters.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Winnifred Violet Unsworth Thomas.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Helen Louisa Willcox Reid.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Richard Carter Eaton.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Annie Coyle Frances.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Beatrice Irene Moore Hawes.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Laura Lillian Butler May.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 72, for the relief of Gladys Ethel Standring Weldon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Elizabeth Maude Foy Gage.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of George Burley Beresford.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Isabella Eleonora Cantlie Angus.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of bill No. 9, to amend the Navigable Waters' Protection Act.
Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Before this bill is read a second time I should like to ask the minister a question. The purpose, as I understand it, of part I of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act is to prevent our navigable rivers from being obstructed or impeded or rendered dangerous or difficult for ships by the construction of bridges or wharves or dams or other structures which have not been approved by the governor in council. This is necessary and important legislation. The amendment that is proposed is an amendment of subsection 2 of section 5 of the act, which I have just had an opportunity to look at for a minute, and provides that before any obstruction can be put in navigable waters permission has to be obtained of the governor in council. If permission is not obtained from the governor in council, if my recollection serves me correctly-I have not had the time to look carefully into this just now-there is provision that permission can subsequently be obtained; and if I understand it, the amendment which is proposed has to do with that permission. Am I right in that supposition? Is the amendment to provide for permission in the cases of works which have been put up without the consent of the governor in council?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask, then, why the date has been changed; why this amendment is being made? Have certain works been constructed without the approval of the governor in council which this amendment is intended to cover and, if that is so, for what particular works is this amendment to provide?


Alphonse Fournier: As the hon. member has mentioned, the amendment proposed in this bill is a change of the date mentioned in subsection 2 of section 5. The act itself came into effect in 1886, and it was

Navigable Waters
151*
passed for reasons of security and defence purposes, to ensure that there were no obstacles or impediments in navigable waters so that in case of emergency or in case of war navigation would be free in those waters.. The act has not been amended very often since 1886, but on a few occasions parliament has approved the change of the date in subsection 2 of section 5. It actually reads:
The governor in council may approve of works constructed, or in process of construction, on the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, subject to the provisions of section seven hereof, and such approval shall have the same effect as approval of works to be constructed.
That refers to section 7 of part I of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act. I may state here that the first part of the act comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works; the two other sections of the act come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges). The first part relates to works that are "built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council," or "unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council." On account of war conditions, this section has not been amended for a good many years. I cannot recall whether it was 1926 or 1928 when the last amendment was made. But I am informed that certain works since 1918 have been put up without approval of the sites or of the works being asked from the Department of Public Works, and it is thought that we should now change this date to June 1, 1938.
Personally I recall one instance, and I think this is the general case, where somebody, through ignorance, puts up some works without applying for approval of the site or the plans. Later on these works are transferred to other parties. These people request approval of the site and works, and the governor in council cannot give approval of these works because this subsection 2 of section 5 gives this definite date of June 1, 1918.
I have in mind certain hydro electric power developments on the North river in the province of Quebec. The development of these works took place about 1923 or 1924. They were carried out by a man named Wilson. Later on, the development was sold to another concern, the Montreal Power or something of that sort. This last company in 1928 sold its rights to the Gatineau Power company, which applied to the department, when a thorough study was made of the 63260-96i
situation and it was found that we could nof grant approval of these works. Generally, when the department has no knowledge of works that are going on we give notice, or if the works are put up and there are complaints, or if they are a danger to navigation,-we are empowered by section 5 of the act to remove unauthorized works. We would1 not remove works that cost money when, by reason of some error or ignorance of the statute, approval had not been requested, but -if there are complaints we take action.
The case I have mentioned-I cannot think-of any others at the moment-would be mt-by this amendment if it carried. It would give authority to the governor in council to approve after we had received a description of the site as set out in section 7 of the act and a description of the works. That is the only object of the bill, to change the date from June 1, 1918 to June 1, 1938.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On reading this brief bill over I said to myself that it had important relations behind it. To my mind, the erection of works of any description over a navigable river should have the approval of the governor in council, which in this case means the Minister of Public Works, who of course would be advised by the engineers in his department. I gathered from what the minister said that there were certain works he had in view on some river, and I also have in mind certain works on rivers. I think we should insist upon the approval of the government before the commencement of the erection of works over navigable rivers.
I read a few days ago of a proposal to erect a bridge over the Slave river. I believe the position is south of the Northwest Territories and in the northern part of Alberta, and it would be in a part of the river where there is at the moment no navigation. There-are rapids there; but at some future date fit is possible there may be navigation if the rapids are canalized between Fort Fitzgerald and Fort Smith. The construction of any works on the Slave river at that point would have to have the approval of the government, would it not, and the government through the department would protect the interests of the public? That is fine.
The same would apply to the Saskatchewan river. I refer to the North Saskatchewan.
I have been advised of a proposal to build a bridge over the North Saskatchewan river west of Battleford, quite a few miles, and' before any such structure could be erected across that river the promoters would have to obtain the approval of the department. In that event I would feel satisfied that the-public would be protected.
Navigable Waters

I have in mind works started some twenty-six miles down the river from Prince Albert. Is the minister familiar with the dam that goes half-way across the river, an uncompleted dam at what in that part of the country is called the Coal rapids? It has different names; sometimes it is known as Lacole. Before these works were started about 1913, would they not have had to receive the approval of the federal authority?


Alphonse Fournier: In every instance approval is asked for. It would be better if we went into committee because I could answer questions then, seeing that I am not in order in doing so at this stage. However, if the hon. gentleman will look at section 7 of the act he will see that it is not mandatory. It is provided there that the local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters for which no sufficient sanction otherwise exists may deposit the plans thereof, and a description of the proposed site, with the Minister of Public Works, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of deeds for the district, county or province in which the said work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply to the governor in *council for approval thereof.


William Ross Macdonald: May I suggest -to hon. members that they refrain from asking [DOT]questions at this stage of the proceedings. The motion is that the bill be read the second time, and when the house is in committee there will ibe ample opportunity for questions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will not delay the house, =and I may say that so far I have not wasted any time. I simply wish to learn from the minister that the public are thoroughly protected in the conduction of any works across navigable rivers. There will be many works on the Ottawa river shortly. Whether that river is regarded by the government as navigable, I do not know, but it is as far as Ottawa, and west of Ottawa it should be and perhaps will be. If the act covers such rivers as are navigable, like the Ottawa, I am satisfied with the protection afforded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Approval of works constructed.
Alphonse Fournier: In answer to the hon. member, this act applies to all navigable waters except the St. Lawrence river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is international.


Alphonse Fournier: Section II of the act reads:

No approval shall be given under this part ot the site or plans of any bridge over the river St. Lawrence.
We have found that generally the public, persons or corporations, having works done on navigable rivers, apply for approval of the site and works, but without having definite information we believe that during the war works were put up on navigable waters in certain parts of the country without the necessary approval. I cannot give a single instance, but officials of the department are going into that phase of the matter. Certain works may have been put up on navigable waters in certain parts of the country during war time, for defence purposes, *which have not received the approval mentioned in sections 5 and 7 of this act. If they were completed we would have no way to give approval to these works-


An hon. MEMBER:: By changing the date?


Alphonse Fournier: That would not apply. I am not correcting what I am stating, because the date we present here is June 1, 1938. I have gathered together what the officials of my department told me in trying to justify this amendment to the act when it was brought into the house. It is hoped that the department will be able to make a survey of works in every district and in every part of the country which have not received approval since 1918. If they are not an obstacle or an impediment, or if no complaint has been made against these works, and if they file plans and descriptions of the sites and the works we shall be ready to approve them.


Gordon Graydon: This, strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Before a survey is made, or before the officials have found anything wrong a survey is to be made. If the minister has found something wrong I think the committee should be given the benefit of of the information upon which this bill must be based; otherwise the minister is bringing in legislation before that information is gathered. After the legislation is brought in a survey is to be made to find out whether any of these things have happened. I should think it ought to be the other way round. If after the survey is made that situation is found to exist, then parliament would be in a position to pass legislation, if it is deemed advisable, to correct the situation.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house when I first made my short statement.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, I was.


Alphonse Fournier: One case was brought to my attention which I thought was

Navigable Waters
an important one. An application was made to the department by the Gatineau Power company under section 7 of this act. It was found in the file that these works had been made by a man by the name of Wilson at Wilson's chute on the North river in the province of Quebec. Later on, this development was sold to another company, and a little later was again sold to the Gatineau Power company. In looking up their files when they came in possession of these works the company found that no approval by the government had been given to the site, to the erection of these works. They made application, sent in their petition, filed the plans and descriptions of the site and works, but we could not give approval because these works had been made after June 1. 1918. This would be a case in point which this amendment would cover. I do not know of any other specific case of this importance that has come to my knowledge.


Gordon Graydon: I recall the minister citing that particular case. Judging by what the minister said a few moments ago, I thought this was only one of many cases. The minister does not seem to have any other case in mind, but we are now going to pass legislation to cover a widespread number of cases that may turn up once a survey is made. That is the point I am trying to make. I do not wish to be unduly technical about it, but it seems to me that we are putting some carts before some horses. I do not think we should do that if we can avoid it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Under this bill no approval will be given to works that obstruct navigation.


Alphonse Fournier: No; that is gone into before we do give approval. We have a series of regulations which they undertake to follow. These regulations have been established for many years, and we find that they generally conform to the regulations.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Is it necessary under this act for a lumber company to get permission to drive piles or build docks or booms in navigable waters? What is the procedure in determining if there are no protests from the public? There is something in the point made by the hon. member for Peel with regard to putting the cart before the horse. Here we may be legalizing and regularizing something that has already taken place.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not say that the act applies to all works that are put up on navigable waters, because there are some exceptions in section 4, subsection 2, which reads as follows:
The provisions of this section shall not apply to small wharves or groynes or other bank or beach protection works, or boathouses, if in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works
(a)	they do not interfere with navigation, and
(b)	do not cost more than one thousand dollars.
These are certain small works that would not be obstacles to navigation. But every company that does put up works on navigable waters makes application. There is a regular formula that is sent out to these people, a request, and they have the forms. They have the plans prepared. They file those plans with us and with the local registry. There is a public notice given in the Canada Gazette and in the local papers. After one month's delay, if no objection is taken to the application, the governor in council, on condition that the company or the person undertakes to follow the regulations, generally grants approval of this site and of the works.


Douglas King Hazen: Have any complaints been received that any works have interfered with navigation?


Alphonse Fournier: Not to my
knowledge.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It has been mentioned that works to the value of $1,000 or less that do not interfere with navigation do not come within the provisions of this act. A company could easily drive half a dozen piles and put a boom chain out in a navigable river which might not cost more than $100, but it might be a serious impediment to navigation. Does the minister say that in these circumstances the piles could be driven without the permission of the department?


Alphonse Fournier: I believe in the case mentioned we would receive complaints immediately, and then we would certainly investigate and have these works removed under section 5 of the act. I cannot visualize a case where somebody would just put up works to interfere with navigation. That is not the way it is generally done. People do ask approval. Probably some do not know of the existence of this statute, and by error or even negligence put up works which do not interfere with navigation; and when we have no complaints we generally give approval.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Where smaller or larger works have been constructed along the chain of great lakes, other than the St. Lawrence river, which have been in existence for some time, what is the extent of the responsibility of the federal government? What distance is taken in by the federal government as a responsibility in connection with any small work that may have been undertaken in the past? Could the minister give me any dir-
Navigable Waters

*ection on that? There are many places along the chain of lakes where projects hare been completed and in. use for some time, and from what the minister says I gather that this amendment is proposed to bring such works within the scope of the act. But I am asking how far the responsibility of the federal government goes, say along the shore line, from the point where the work has been erected.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not know exactly the extent of our jurisdiction, but any work which would interfere with navigation seems to be covered in this statute. We are governed by section 4 of the act, and I have given the exceptions to that section, which reads:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
That is the limit of our jurisdiction. Nearly every week applications come in from different parts of the country, even for small wharves along rivers and lakes. We may find instances where the person putting up such work did not really understand that the work required our approval if it amounted to over $1,000. Then he is advised that he should obtain approval. He makes application, and if this work was completed after June 1, 1918, we cannot grant that approval. The object of the amendment is to extend this date to 1938. This is in the interests of protection to navigation when any works are put up which may interfere. When this happens we generally hear about it. If the work does not interfere with navigation and there is no complaint, if no application is made we do not tear down the work.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Perhaps I can be a little more explicit. Take a case where smaller docking facilities may be provided at some place along the chain of lakes, we will say. Over a period of years quite a number of boats may anchor in that vicinity because of the facilities provided by that small work which has been installed. There may be certain interference with navigation and there must be some responsibility where there is a small harbour or where these docking facilities are provided. Does the federal responsibility end at the edge of the dock, or does it extend some distance from the dock, and whose responsibility is it? Let me put it in this way. Who is responsible for maintenance along the shoreline of inland lakes and rivers where these works may be constructed? I should like to have that clear.
'Mr. Lockhart.]


Alphonse Fournier: Any responsibility for damages, say, wTould not rest with the federal government but with the owner of the property. All we do under this act is approve such works in navigable waters. We have absolutely no other responsibility than to see that such works do not interfere with navigation.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well, if something had been permitted, even though it had neveT been approved, there would be a responsibility in connection with any interference or damage that might be caused.


Alphonse Fournier: These plans are filed not only in the Department of Public Works but in the local registry of the county, and anyone using navigable waters generally has a plan of those waters and knows where such works have been erected. That is one reason we have this act, in order that everyone can refer to the approved plans of the sites of these works and know where these obstacles are. Then they certainly can avoid them while navigating the waters.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then in a general way whose responsibility is it to see that the shoreline along our chain of great lakes, say, is maintained? Is it a provincial or a federal responsibility? It comes under navigable waters, because they are all navigable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Do not keep on with this "carried" stuff. I should like an answer to that, so that I may know exactly under whose jurisdiction these navigable waters come.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member is speaking of the shores of rivers and lakes, they do not come under federal jurisdiction at all. I have always been under the impression that they were under provincial jurisdiction. What we are dealing with here is navigable waters, and any works in navigable waters that may affect or interfere with navigation. We do not go farther than that


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the minister care to define "navigable waters"? Then we shall find out what we are talking about.


Alphonse Fournier: I would have to refer to the judgments of the privy council in some very famous cases, and I would not care to do so from memory. If I had time I might even refer to the Gatineau case, which went to the privy council, to decide whether that was a navigable river, and the question was decided in the affirmative.

Criminal Code


Arthur Leroy Smith: Anything a child's boat will go down is a navigable water, is it not?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps the hon. member had better give us his definition.


Alan Cockeram: Would the minister explain why he has this cut-off date of 1938? If this act is to be passed, why not bring it right up to date?


Alphonse Fournier: That is a fair question. Probably this is an arbitrary date. Years ago, in 1926 or 1927, they fixed the date at 1918. Now they are moving it up, and I believe they have been doing that since 1886.


Alan Cockeram: Why not bring it right up to date now?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not want to take upon myself the responsibility of not following the advice of my officials, who think June 1, 1938, would be a proper date.


Mr. FRASER:: A few moments ago the minister said his department would have plans, or they would be in the registry office, showing the works along these waters. But there might be unauthorized work done, without any plans being registered. This would cover that as well, would it?


Alphonse Fournier: Before giving approval we would have to obtain plans of the works. I think it is for the benefit of. everyone that we should change this date and try to have these plans for unauthorized wTorks registered in the local registry as well as with our department, in order that people using these waters may know exactly the location of these works.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When this bill passes would not such unauthorized works receive approval?


Alphonse Fournier: Not unless an application is made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I see nothing here against those works passing.


Alphonse Fournier: We do not give any blanket approval of works because we are changing the date in this amendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But if it were done before 1938, they would-


Alphonse Fournier: They would have the right to apply for approval.


Alan Cockeram: Why do we not bring
this act up to date?


Alphonse Fournier: There can be no objection to this more recent date.


Alan Cockeram: I have no objection to the date, but I should like to have it advanced, if it is possible to do so.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps we shall do that next year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister's
department supply a list of the navigable rivers in Canada?


Alphonse Fournier: That would be quite an undertaking, and I do not know if the expense would be justified. Would it be tabled in the house? I do not know what object there would be in tabling a list of that kind. Some of them in the northern part of the country have not yet been explored.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second [DOT] reading of bill No. 15, to amend the criminal code (race meetings).
He said: Perhaps I should make an explanation of this bill before we go into committee. It was introduced in the senate, partly for the purpose of expediting the work of the session, and received its introduction as a result of representations made from the Department of Agriculture.
When the bill was introduced it was the intention to make two amendments, the most important of which is contained in section 2 of the bill. This amendment provides for having two race meets held, or the race meets of two different associations held on one track. Prior to the war an association held a race meet of seven days on its track. During the war we found it necessary to use some of these race track accommodations, and it was found advisable to have two meets held on one track. It has been found that there is no objection to that. As a matter of fact, many things can be said in favour of it, both by those who favour racing and by those who do not. It is proposed that what has been in the order in council throughout the war should now be placed in the legislation itself.
While that legislation was being prepared, it was proposed to eliminate, or to make it impossible for those who had had a charter under the old situation which existed prior to 1912, to operate. Charters were given under different conditions. A law was passed about that time compelling all those who wanted to have a charter for racing to have legislation
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
either federal or provincial. It was thought that we might eliminate from pari-mutuels all those who had been organized for the purpose of having trotting and pacing races. But it has been represented to me by hon. members from both sides of the house that only one organization is affected by it, that some hardship would be created so far as it is concerned, and that no particular good would be done by bringing about a change at this time.
Therefore, when we are in committee I intend to move an amendment to remove the words "other than an association empowered by its charter to conduct only trotting and pacing races or to maintain and operate a driving park." Those words having been asked to be eliminated, the section will be in exactly the same position as it was before, with the exception of three words in line 6 near the top of page 2, which are only to clarify the meaning. No change is brought about by them.
Therefore the important change is in section 2, which makes it possible for two associations to hold a race meet at one park.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the amendment suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, it seems to me there can be no objection to the principle of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1

Betting, pool-selling and bookmaking.
James Garfield Gardiner: My colleague will move the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the words "other than an association einpowered by its charter to conduct only trotting and pacing races or to maintain and operate a driving park" as they appear in lines 25, 26 and 27 be stricken out.


Douglas King Hazen: If section 1 is amended, will it permit the operation of pari-mutuels at harness races?


James Garfield Gardiner: This will permit the operation of pari-mutuels at running races run on a track operated by an association organized before 1912 for the purpose of having trotting or pacing races. Pari-mutuels would be operated in connection with running races run on those tracks.


Douglas King Hazen: Does this amendment affect the operation of pari-mutuels in connection with harness races on tracks in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it does not affect them. If this amendment is made, it does not
(Mr. Gardiner.]
affect the operation of pari-mutuels on any tracks whatsoever. They operate in the same way as they do now.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of bill No. 64, to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1937.
Mr. SENN:: Would the minister explain?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill is for the purpose of providing some protection largely, I think, for dealers. It has been the custom in the past to sell feed in 98-pound bags, 96-pound bags and 100-pound bags, and difficulty has arisen largely in the province of Quebec because the practice has been to sell simply at so much per bag, without specifying whether it is a 96-pound, 98-pound or 100-pound bag. The amendment is to compel the weight to be put on all bags.
There is also a provision in regard to vitamins which I think we can best discuss when the bill is in committee.


Mr. BRYCE:: Will the analysis of the feed content be put on the bag as well as the weight?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is provided for under the general legislation. This bill has to do with the weight of the bag.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Exemptions.
Mark Cecil Senn: Does this apply to all kinds of feed stuffs?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment substitutes a new section 3, and subsection 1 of the new section 3 provides that "subject to subsection 2 of this section" the act shall not apply to those mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Subsection 2 of the new section 3 provides:
Such hulled oats, hulled barley, cracked Indian corn and the whole seeds or grains of cultivated farm crops as are intended for consumption by live stock shall be deemed to be feeding stuff and subject to the regulatory powers provided by section fourteen of this act.

Feeding Stuffs
I have an amendment which I will ask my colleague to move to strike out the words "and subject to the regulatory powers provided by section fourteen of this act" and substitute therefor the words "for the purposes of section fourteen of this act," so that subsection 2 will then read:
Such hulled oats, hulled barley, cracked Indian corn and the whole seeds or grains of cultivated farm crops as are intended for consumption by live stock shall be deemed to be feed stuff for the purposes of section fourteen of this act.
Section 2 amends section 14 of the present act by adding immediately after paragraph (d) thereof the following paragraph:
(dd) prescribing and limiting the vitamin claims that may be made for any feeding stuff or any ingredients or constituents thereof.


Mark Cecil Senn: Many farmers go to a mill grinding this class of goods, and they take their own bags and buy a ton of a certain kind of feed stuff. In a case of that kind does this section compel the weight to be put on the bag?


James Garfield Gardiner: The exemptions are shown in subsection 1 of the new section 3, which says that this act shall not apply to:
(a)	whole hays, straws, corn stover and silage when unmixed with any other material;
(b)	hulled oats, hulled barley, cracked Indian corn and the whole seeds or grains of cultivated farm crops;
(c)	feeding stuff prepared in accordance with a prescription provided and signed by the purchaser for consumption or processing by such purchaser;
(d)	feeding stuff for export from Canada and so labelled;
(e)	feeding stuffs sold by the individual grower thereof.
The act does not apply to them. I shall ask my colleague to move the amendment I mentioned a moment ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Scottie Bryce: Will the farmer who is making up this feed on his own farm have to comply with these regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: A farmer selling to another on the farm would not be affected by this.


William Scottie Bryce: That is the point I wanted made clear. It is only when the feed stuff goes into the commercial market?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is this just to protect the buyer with respect to the vitamin content?


James Garfield Gardiner: Present vitamin regulations apply only to articles which are primarily vitamin A and D supplements, those vitamins supplied by cod liver or other feeding oils. There is a need and demand to regulate other vitamin products, and also to limit vitamin claims to those vitamins and potencies which feeding authorities recognize as necessary supplements to ordinary rations. There is a growing tendency to market multiple vitamin products under claims which are misleading to the average feeder, inasmuch as some of the vitamins claimed are adequately supplied without sufch supplements or the potencies are insufficient to serve the needed purposes. This is to safeguard the farmer who is purchasing against representations which are not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. REID:: Is any test made of the cod liver oil and other oils that are put in feeds? I have in mind a case where one party lost one thousand turkeys. I know that the vitamin contents are stated on the sack, but there was nothing to prevent the dealer from using oil that was detrimental and that might affect the lives of poultry. Are precautions taken to protect the buyer in that respect? In addition to putting the vitamin contents on the bag, why not go a step farther and have the ingredients such as cod liver oil and other things that are put in poultry feeds tested before they are put in?


James Garfield Gardiner: I know that we had test feeds in connection with the different organizations in the department. This particular section empowers the department to make regulations to do the very thing that is suggested, prescribing and limiting the vitamin claims that can be made for any feeding stuff or any ingredients or constituents thereof. I would assume, in order to enforce a regulation of that kind, there would have to be means of making tests if complaints were made.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was going to raise the same point which was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. It seems to me that this will be a most difficult thing to regulate. The time it will be done in most cases will be after the wrong type of feed has been given to poultry, and before any action i3 taken. Is any penalty attached to misleading information?


James Garfield Gardiner: The penalties are in the act. I am not sure what they are, but penalties will apply to this section along with all other sections. There will be difficulty, of course, in enforcing a regulation of this kind, and it is just possible that in most



KJVISKD EDITION

[Stage Direction]
1526	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
cases someone will lose turkeys or chickens before a complaint is made and an investigation held. But it will prevent any repetition after that.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of
bill No. 54, to amend the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to explain the bill?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I really do not think any explanation is needed apart from the explanation I made on the first reading of the bill. In 1942 an act was passed dealing with the reinstatement of men in the armed forces. I think the house will appreciate that at that time this was more or less a virgin field. In the last war there was no legislation of that description, and the act was drafted in the light of the limited experience we had at that time. I remember that I played some part in the drafting of that measure.
In the light of practical experience a number of orders in council were passed under the War Measures Act. That is, as difficulties arose and interpretations were necessary to broaden the act, they were embodied in orders in council passed under the War Measures Act; and all that this does is to give statutory authority to those regulations under the War Measures Act, because we shall need them, we expect, at the time when bill No. 15 expires.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act was passed, as the minister has said, in 1942. It was passed after careful consideration by a special committee of the house, and I think that in practice it has worked out very well. I agree with what the minister said on the first reading of the bill to the effect that employers had shown great willingness to comply with the spirit of the act and that generally speaking, the act had been very successful. The bill under consideration this evening is to amend that act and bring it up to date. Apparently in the years which have intervened since the act was passed it has been found that corrections were needed; and, as the explanatory note points out, these corrections, which were made
(Mr. Gardiner.]
by order in council are now to be incorporated in the act. On page 2 of the bill will be found these words in one of the orders in council:
That it is therefore, by reason of the war, deemed necessary, for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada, to make regulations defining the rights of persons to reinstatement in civil employment pending reconsideration of the said act by parliament.
Those last few words are the ones I want to emphasize:	"pending reconsideration of
the said act by parliament." This is what was done:	changes were made by order in
council. They were called regulations, but in effect they were changes in the act; and now I suggest to the minister that these changes should be written right into the act-[DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: In effect that is what this does.


Howard Charles Green: -whereas this bill simply takes four orders in council and makes them schedules to the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the same thing.


Howard Charles Green: It does not sort out the parts of the regulations which should be written into the act. It just takes the four orders in council holus-bolus, calls them the schedule to the act, and that is aid there is to it.
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that legislation has been brought in to put orders in council into statutory form. I assume there will be other instances, both during this present session and in the sessions immediately ahead, and I think it is important that we get started in the right way. I suggest to the ministry that the practice should be to take out of the orders in council those portions which should be in the acts, and leave as regulations those parts which are really regulations. But that is not what is done here. It is particularly important that all legislation having to do with men who have served in the forces be clearly set out, so that there can be no misunderstanding of the rights of those men who have stood between us and our enemies, who have saved this country. If this bill passes in its present form their rights will not be clearly defined, because there is apt to be a conflict between the act and the regulations.
Take the soldier who reads the act. If this bill is passed in its present form, the man who goes to the act to see what his rights are, when he reads the act, will think it defines his rights. But in fact many of the most important rights which have been given to him are set out in the sjhedule. In other

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
words, they were in the orders in council, and now, in the way this bill is drawn, they will have to be dug up out of the schedule. I would ask the ministry to look at these orders in council and see some of the examples. For example, on page 2 we find that section 3 of the regulations in that particular order in council reads:
For the purposes of the act and these regulations	
Then it goes on to make certain definitions. Section 6 deals with what shall be done where an employer operates a business in several different establishments: it is an important provision; yet it will be in the schedule and not in the original act. In section 7 of the order in council, to be found at the foot of page 3 of the bill, we find provisions for making application for reinstatement. In the bottom line the following appears:
And, notwithstanding section 4 of the act, it is not a defence in proceedings for violation of section 3 of the act for the employer to prove facts described by paragraph (b) of section 4 of the act unless he also proves that the employee applied for reinstatement before he offered reinstatement to him.
That contradicts part of the. original act and it should be written into the act.


Mr MITCHELL:: Look at the last section of the order in council.


Howard Charles Green: I will read that. It is the worst feature of all.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is the best.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph 8 of the order in council covers application to a reinstatement officer for assistance, and we find at the bottom of page 4 another provision which protects the veteran. It takes away one of the defences given to the employer under the original act. Section 10 should also be set out in the act. It provides:
Proof, for the purposes of paragraph (e) of section 4 of the act. that an applicant was employed to take the place of an employee who had been previously accepted for service in His Majesty's forces may only be made by proving that the applicant w-as employed directly or indirectly to take the place of the other employee and would not have been employed if the other employee had not left the employment.
Section 11 is an important one that should be in the act. It relates to rate of remuneration on reinstatement and also provides for permanent status and seniority of the employee. Section 12 of this order in council provides for vacations with pay, another important feature that should be in the act.
I will not cite other instances, but there are two or three more to be found in the order in council. The order in council concludes with paragraph 17:
Where there is any conflict between the provisions of the act and the provisions of these . regulations, the regulations prevail.
All other legislation that I know of provides that the provisions of the act shall prevail over the regulations, but here we have a provision that the regulations shall prevail over the act. That was quite proper when the order in council was originally passed, because in effect it was passed as a statute under the War Measures Act. I am not quarrelling with its being there in an order in council under the War Measures Act, but I suggest that most of the provisions should really be part of the act and should be put into the act, leaving anything else as a schedule or more properly as regulations. Actually, this is careless draftsmanship on the part of somebody.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friend that the regulations were drafted by a gentleman like himself, a lawyer, not a layman. In any event, I thought that on the second reading we discussed the principle of the bill and not its details.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely that is a principle.


Howard Charles Green: The second order in council, which is made part of the schedule to the bill, obviously contains provisions that should be written right into the definition section of the act itself. It is to extend the act to cover members of the naval, military or air forces of any of the united nations who were employed in Canada prior to September 9, 1939. The other two orders in council, made a part of the schedule, should also be incorporated in the definition section of the act.
I would not want the minister or the house to think I am quarrelling with the act respecting reinstatement in civil employment, or with the provisions that have been passed during the war to improve that act; but I am suggesting, in fairness to the veterans, in fairness to the men who are protected by this act, that the bill should be withdrawn and should be brought back in the form of an amendment to the original act. Not until then shall we have it in proper shape.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green),'even if it only applies to neatness. We have many orders in council and we have been told-I was going to use the word "threatened", but I will not-shall I say it has been suggested by the minister that many things under his jurisdiction are to be brought in during this session by way of statute. I am quite sure most of us will
1528	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
agree with that. However, I lay this down, and I invite any lawyer in this house to support the position where it is stated in an act which is making a regulation part of a statute that this regulation shall supersede the provisions of the act when the regulation is made a part of the act itself. Let any man in this house with legal training, any man who values his reputation, rise in his place and try to defend that sort of draftsmanship in legislation. I know perfectly well no one will do so.
What we are doing is this. We are passing a statute and saying that such and such is the law. I hear someone opposite saying something. I wish he would speak louder. He is a lawyer and I should like to hear what he is saying. I repeat, what we are doing is passing a statute which says A, B, C, D, and in the same statute we say, "No; it may be 35, F, G, or H". That is what we are doing. The minister says he is a great draftsman.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I beg your pardon.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am a humble person.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then permit me to compliment him on being a good draftsman thoroughly in discord with what his people have done in this particular job, because his legal training is sufficient for that. This may be a matter of urgency; I gather it is. Let those people whose business it is to draft laws put them in simple form. Heaven knows, we need them in that form. Let us therefore take just a little time out for the purpose. I think the whole house agrees with the principle and with what is sought to be done. We have here a short act and tremendous schedules, because they are tremendous, comparable with the size of the act itself, and the act means nothing; the schedules mean everything. Let us simplify our procedure, our reading and our difficulties and avoid trouble for us who are lawyers and who have to try to interpret these things that are done by non-legal persons.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to support what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) have said with respect to the manner in which this bill has been brought in. I do not believe there would be any disagreement from any section of this house on the objects of the bill. As the hon. member for Vancouver South said a few moments ago, the urgency of the bill does not mean very much because it is in effect now, having regard to the legislation 
passed under the War Measures Act. However, that drives or should drive the minister into the position where this bill ought to be overhauled. It is not a question of amendment; it is a question of a complete overhaul of this bill. In my opinion this bill will create a dangerous, a clumsy and an ineffective precedent for this government and this parliament to follow. Particularly is that true at a time when we are passing from order in council legislation to ordinary parliamentary legislation.
I am perfectly serious with respect to this, because if we create this precedent now there is no reason why in the transitional period legislation may not follow the basis and the example that this legislation now sets. I am not referring particularly to the minister in this regard because he has completely exonerated himself from all possible results that may follow from this bill. This is nothing but a lazy man's legislation. As an hon. member said, from the point of view of neatness alone it should be changed, but I shall not put it on that basis. This is nothing short of simply making parliament just an ordinary bookbindery for putting together some orders in council and running them through. That is not good enough. We have to be something more than a bookbindery putting together orders in council.
We hear talk about a veterans' charter. This is nothing more than a scrapbook so far as veterans are concerned. It is making a laughing-stock of veterans' legislation. I do not think this is the kind of legislation that we should pass as the law by which the veterans of this country are to be governed, to say nothing of the employers who are to give them employment when they come back.
The schedules of ordinary legislation usually contain the aftermath of the legislation or some of the regulations and so on that go with it. But here we have the material parts of the bill not in the bill itself but in the schedule. From a reading of the bill it is obvious that it is unsound so far as procedure is concerned, because in three or four places in the bill one finds not only the numbers of the orders in council passed under the War Measures Act but also the name of the clerk of the privy council, if you please. His name is right in the legislation. If that is not an untidy piece of business, to say nothing of the operational parts of the bill, then I think the minister will have to revise his opinion as to what is good legislation.
Before second reading is given and before the bill becomes law which will serve as a precedent-and that is bothering me considerably, particularly at this psychological time, because it might be followed by this

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
government passing a piece of legislation after a piece of legislation where we shall be simply binding up orders in council that have been passed during the war; they will be presented to the house in undigested form and we shall be asked to fill the statute books by simply putting the rubber-stamp of parliament upon orders in council that have been passed under entirely different circumstances-I would ask the minister to consider these objections to the bill. The objects are good; the idea is an excellent one and will have no possible objection from any part of the house. But when there is such unanimity with respect to the objects and the principle of the bill, please do not let us render it ineffective or pass it in a form which is much less than what a good bill deserves. For that reason I ask that this clumsy bill be overhauled and something better put in its place, something that will give effect to what we want to give effect to, namely, the objects of the legislation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not a lawyer, but I have listened to some of my legal friends to-night. What we need is a bill that the ordinary layman can understand. I have spoken on the floor of this house many times since 1942 in connection with veterans legislation which is to be found in chapter 31, 1942-43, of the statutes of Canada, and is entitled:
An act to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces and other designated classes of persons.
There is in this act a section which is most important and interesting. I shall read it. It is section 3, and reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person accepted for service in Mis Majesty's forces was employed when accepted for such service, to reinstate him in employment at the termination of his service in such occupation and position as would be consistent with the true intent and purposes of this act and under conditions not less favourable to him

Remember that.

than those which would have been applicable to him had he remained in the employment of that employer.
It is impossible to put that into effect because you do not know the individuality of the individual; you do not know what his capabilities are; you do not know how far he would have gone. He might have been general manager of the company if he had stayed there. I want to bring this to the attention of the house. The section continues:
Provided, that the right to reinstatement shall be subject to established rules of seniority in the employer's establishment, with retention of seniority rights during the employee's period of service with His Majesty's forces, or, in an absence of such rules, to preference according to dates of first employment in the employer's service with due consideration to continuity of employment in that service:	And provided,
further, that for determining the employee's rights to pension or other benefits, service in His Majesty's forces shall be deemed to have been service with the employer.
I am of the opinion that that paragraph of this act is almost impossible of accomplishment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the hon. member objecting to that?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not objecting, to it. I should like to see them all come back and get better positions than they would have-had had they not gone into the forces. I am not a lawyer; but when I picked up the bill which is before us, this scrapbook, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) called it- that is all it is-I was amazed. There is nothing in it. What we need is a new act that will mean something.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has worked very well.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It may have worked very well, but only because the employers themselves have made it work. It has not worked well because of any acts of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Cheap stuff.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It has no teeth in it. On many occasions I have asked the Minister of Labour why he was not enforcing the act, and he could not tell me. He could not enforce the act; that is all there was to it; there were too many other reasons. As I say, I am not a lawyer, but I think this is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I ever saw, from a layman's point of view. For heaven's sake let us get a new bill.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I am afraid this is one time I have to agree with hon. gentlemen to my right. It does not happen often, but I suppose on the law of averages it must occur once in a while. Personally I think this bill is in the wrong place when it is brought up to be discussed in this house. It is important legislation, dealing with a subject matter which has caused considerable ill feeling within the past year. Many sections of the orders in council which are incorporated in the bill have been very difficult to interpret. A moment ago the hon. member for St. Paul's said that the employers made it work. In the section of the country from which I come the employers did not make it work; anything else but, particularly in connection with vacation with pay.
1530	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
It seems to me this bill is so important that it should have gone to the veterans affairs committee. It is something pertaining absolutely to veterans; and if we are to have a veterans charter administered by one department and one minister, then I believe the subject matter of this bill belongs to the veterans affairs committee at this time, in order that it may be given an overhauling. There are many things wrong with it. I am not going to take time this evening to go into them all, but I would suggest to the minister that this legislation be passed along now to the veterans affairs committee. All during the war we bowed to the emergency and accepted legislation by order in council. Under the Emergency Powers Act the government still has the right to administer by order in council where there is an emergency. No emergency exists at the present time with regard to this legislation. The war is over; the soldiers are coming back. Many of them are having difficulty in getting back the jobs they left when they entered the services. Instead of the Minister of Labour continuing to try to handle this, with the many complex problems with which he has to deal in the field of employment, I believe he should be glad to pass it over to the veterans affairs committee.
I believe the time to legislate by order in council has passed. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that simply -'incorporating all these orders in council into .this bill and making the schedule the dominant factor in it is the wrong thing to do. I am igoing to point out just one or two difficulties in connection with the provision concerning 'vacation with pay; and mind you, these difficulties exist right across the country. For example, during the war thousands of soldiers were on industrial leave. They were taken out of the services for work in coal mines and on farms, and to meet other essential requirements. They may have spent a year or eighteen months in industry before going back to the army to be discharged. Then, when they came back to industry the time they spent in industrial life did not count in connection with vacations with pay. The employer said no, the man was in the service. The army said no, he was on leave without pay. So that there is a good deal of friction in that regard. Only a few days ago the mine, mill and smelter workers' union-


Humphrey Mitchell: You are speaking of industrial leave from the services?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. In spite of the fact that a soldier on leave might have spent approximately eighteen months in a given industry he had to go back to the army to be discharged.
[Mr. Gillis.)
Then, when he came back to the industry they told him he was not entitled to a vacation with pay because he had not worked for ninety days since his discharge, overlooking the fact that he had been there for the previous eighteen months. The order in council having to do with vacations with pay still contains that disability, and I should like to see it amended. Then the ninety-day period for vacations with pay is causing difficulty. I know the order in council states that if the employer so desires he may waive the ninety-day period and grant a vacation with pay; but the minister will remember that this subject nearly caused an upheaval in the mines of Nova Scotia, because the employers said they would not grant that vacation with pay if a man did not have the ninety days of service, unless they got a directive from the government. The Department of Labour refused to give a directive, because they said the power was there if the employers wanted to use it. That matter hung in the balance for months, and I believe it requires clarification.
The enforcement of the act with regard to reinstatement in civil employment is another thing that is not working out. The minister knows that when bill No. 5 was first introduced back in 1942, I think it was, the canteen committee worked on it. A provision was written into that bill to the effect that if the employer refused to reinstate a man in the job he held prior to enlistment, without reasonable grounds, it was the prerogative of the department administering that act to see that it was enforced by prosecuting the employer. I have run into cases where the employer did not have reasonable ground and still refused to reinstate his former employee, and I did not have any success in persuading the departmental officials in the centre where I was at that time to take the employer into court and prosecute him. I know boys who went around for months and could not get back into their previous employment. I want to see these difficulties ironed out by the veterans affairs committee. There is no hurry about this matter, and I am suggesting to the minister that this bill should go to that committee, where it can be fixed up.


Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it has been very difficult to sit here and disagree with the hon. member for Calgary West, the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Vancouver South. The thing that most commends itself to me in this bill is the marginal notes, and it does not make any difference whether or not they are there.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
I must say to the minister that the draftsmanship is slack and a bit inferior. I believe we deserve just a little better than this. We dealt with this bill in the veterans affairs committee last year.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no, you did not.


David Arnold Croll: Yes; we had the officials
before us and questioned them on this very bill, and we became quite well versed in it.
I think the minister will regret it if the house passes this measure in its present form. It will reflect upon his department. Certainly it is not the kind of legislation dealing with veterans that would come in here from the veterans affairs committee. I think it is unfair to put the minister in this position, even though someone in his department has done so. If the bill is either withdrawn or sent to the veterans affairs committee I believe we shall be doing the department a service. The bill contains a great number of things which have to be cleared up. The legislation has worked very well in some parts of the country, and for that reason the department is a little backward about making changes. They say, "This has worked. Let us see if it will continue to work." I believe the time has come to take another look at it and improve it. I am particularly perturbed about section 17, which seems to appeal to the department. I never saw it before in any act I have ever seen, and I cannot quite understand what it could possibly mean in that particular form. So I am asking the minister if he will reconsider and allow the matter either to stand or to be sent to the veterans affairs committee, where we will deal with it in a kindly way.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Now that the hon. member for Spadina has spoken, I think that makes it almost unanimous that we should not be asked to proceed with this type of legislation this evening. I do not believe it is correct to say that this particular bill was discussed by the committee on veterans affairs last year, but I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South has a good deal of merit, and it seems to me the arguments presented by the Progressive Conservative members have been convincing. I do not think hon. members should be asked to pass this kind of legislation. One of the orders in council was dated January 11, 1945; the next one August 2, 1945; another, November 6, 1945, and the last, April 9, 1946. Surely the minister should not proceed with this type of legislation. If he would agree to refer it
to the veterans affairs committee for redrafting, he would be supporting the general objective of the legislation.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton):
I do not intend to cover any of the points which have been covered so effectively thus far, but I should like to state briefly one or two things which have occurred to me.
So far as the form of the legislation is concerned, if parliament gives second reading to the bill in its present form we shall be making ourselves look foolish, not only in the eyes of the people of this country, but in the eyes of other legislatures as well. With the idea that there should be submitted to parliament certain regulations and orders passed under war-time authority, or under the authority of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, I think we are all in agreement. In other words, I believe we agree that what has the force of legislation passed under that authority should now be submitted to parliament.
But that is a very different thing from submitting these orders in council to the house, regardless of whether they are in harmony with or in contradiction of the existing statutes, and saying, "You have to take them, holus-bolus." I suggest that in its present form this bill offends every canon of legislation.
Here are the four simple rules which any bill coming before this house should clearly observe. In the first place, a bill should be a unity. In the second place, it ought to be clear in meaning. In the third place, it should be logical in construction. In the fourth place, it should not be contradictory. This bill offends each of these four canons of legislation.
In the first place, it is not a unity. What do we find in the bill? We find that we are to take what really represents five different bills. We have the original enactment of 1942, followed by the long, general regulations, of which there are seventeen in all. Attention has already been drawn to section 17, which states, in effect, that if the regulations and statute are in conflict, so much the worse for the statute.
Following that, we have three other orders in council. I should like the house to take just a minute to observe what these various steps are, in sequence. I have referred, first, to the general order in council consisting of seventeen sections. It will be noted that section 17 in the first group of regulations is not repeated in those which follow. Therefore, in giving effect now, as proposed, to section
1532	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment	*
17, we are not saying that the three following orders in council, if adopted, override the statute. No, we do not say that. It is only this first one.
Then we come to the next order in council of August 2, 1945, and we find there an amendment of the original act. This is an amendment to the definition section, section 2.
Then we turn to the third order in council of November 6, and find an amendment to the regulations.
Turning to the fourth order in council, we find that it is an amendment to some of the regulations set up in the third order in council. What does it mean? We say in the bill that all of these become law, and that all shall have the effect of a statute, from this time forward. We are legislating a contradiction. We are legislating with respect to this third order in council, and we are saying, "We will give this the force of a statute." Then we come along to the fourth order in council, and say, in the same breath, and under the same enactment, that part of the third order in council has not the force of law because it has been overridden by the fourth.
Is parliament going to put itself in a position of legislating a hodge-podge like that, contradictory within its own terms, anything but clear, illogical and anything but a unity. I suggest that parliament will look foolish if it proceeds to enact legislation in that fonm. If there ever was a bill which ought to be so clear that he who runs may read, then it should be legislation dealing with the rights of veterans, because the veterans are looking to this measure for their charter rights. Those rights ought to be perfectly clear for any layman to read. This is not the kind of legislation that a citizen should need to take to a lawyer for interpretation; it should be abundantly clear. But we are just going to legislate in a hodge-podge fashion if we pass this.
We have heard a useful suggestion, one which has now been endorsed by several hon. members, namely, that- the bill should go to the committee on veterans affairs, 'and should there be rewritten. All these contradictions and any repetition should be eliminated, so that when the bill comes back, with such improvement as may be worked out in the veterans affairs committee, we shall have a piece of legislation which will be sound, complete and comprehensive, and wall be free of the accusations now properly made against it, that it is not clear, that it is illogical, that it is full of contradictions.
I do not offer that in any sense in a scolding spirit. Rather, I urge upon the minister 
in charge of the bill that in this matter affecting the rights of veterans to reinstatement in civil employment we want to have a clear and comprehensive statute, and we should not pass this legislation, in its present deplorable form.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if I may dose the debate-[DOT]


William Ross Macdonald: If the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: We get the same general suggestion from every speaker.


Mr. BROOKS:: If the minister is going to withdraw his bill-


Humphrey Mitchell: I just wish to say this, that I am going to close the debate, withdraw the bill and send it to the veterans affairs committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then, may I say a word, so far as that committee is concerned.


William Ross Macdonald: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, matters which have come before the veterans affairs committee have been those of principle. It was not my understanding that it had been set up to draft bills.
I think all hon. members are agreed that the principle of this bill is good. The only objection has been as to the draftsmanship. Knowing something about the work still to be done in the veterans affairs committee. I for one feel it should not be asked to redraft [DOT]this bill. If the house were objecting to the principle of the bill, or if other principles could be set out therein, there might foe some justification for sending it to that committee for study. But where it is only a matter of redrafting, where it has already 'been hashed over, if I may use that expression, I think it is a mistake to ask the already overburdened veterans affairs committee to redraft the bill.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, reports have come to me of instances where the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act has not worked. I am glad the Minister of Labour has recognized the necessity for introducing legislation at this session to bring about the intent of that act. That intent was expressed in these words:
It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person accepted for service in His Majesty's forces was employed when accepted for such service, to reinstate him in employment at the termination of his service in such occupation and position as would he consistent with the true intent and purposes of this act and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he remained in the employment of that employer.

Export Act
Let me refer the minister to an actual case in the Canadian National Railways shops at Saskatoon. Men who were employed as workers in the shops had made application as early as 1940 to be taken on as firemen. Before being taken on, they enlisted. Now they have come back and they find that workers who did not enlist have gone out as firemen. The men coming back find their seniority almost completely wiped out, and they cannot get seniority except in the old departments in which they were working. It is a technical point and I hope that an amendment will be brought in to cover it. I am not sure that the veterans affairs committee is the place to redraft the bill, but if a bill is prepared that will carry out the original intention I am sure that it will get support in committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: A simple layman has been given a going over this evening by the legal profession for bringing before parliament a bill drafted by the legal profession.


Howard Charles Green: We hope it has done you good.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may have too, but
nobody knows better than my hon. friends that once you have laid down the basic principles of a law and given it to the legal officers to draft a bill, you have to get a lawyer to interpret it because it is beyond the power of the average layman to do so. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and these orders in council have worked successfully, speaking in a broad way. There may be objections to details as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) have pointed out, which might well be the subject of debate. But the fact is that there has been only one prosecution under this legislation and over
95,000	veterans have been reinstated. So that on the law of averages I do not think that is bad batting.


Howard Charles Green: The special committee drafted the original bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; it went before the committee. This has been referred to as lazy man's legislation. I do not altogether agree with that. But I am quite prepared to withdraw the motion for second reading and have the bill sent to the committee. It has been referred to also as a scrap book, and is said to be difficult to interpret, and so on. We have a staff of 300 across this country who advise the returned men of their rights under these orders in council and under the original legislation. The soldier organizations also understand these orders in council, and in addition we have advisers in the selective service offices across this country. But there is no
objection, I am sure hon. members, to putting the legislation on a basis where it will be clearly understood by the people whom it is designed to benefit.
Something has been said about seniority. Probably no one knows better than the hon. member for Cape Breton South how difficult a thing that is to deal with. The average worker puts seniority in a trade union agreement ahead of wages itself. In dealing with the men who work on the railways, there has been consultation with railroad unions, also with employers and the men affected, who are represented by one of our officials. Where there has been a trade union organization and collective bargaining between the emploj'ee and the employer the application of the orders in council and the act itself have been more satisfactory than where there is no such organization. My hon. friend knows that when you are dealing with an employer who gives no seniority rights to his employees it is more difficult to get the justice we think is due to the men.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if the committee consider that this bill should be consolidated and brought before the committee I am quite prepared to agree to that.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Leader of the House): I think, Mr. Speaker, the proper motion would be, and I move accordingly:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select committee on veterans affairs with instructions that they shall consider the same and report thereon to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 14, to amend the Export Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to eliminate certain overlapping with the Game Export Act and to assist the administration of provincial game regulations. Sections 5 and 6 of the Export Act, which this bill seeks to repeal, prohibit:
The export in the carcass, or parts thereof, of (a) deer, except as authorized by regulation of the governor in council made under the authority of the Customs Act; and (b) wild turkeys, quail, partridge, prairie fowl and woodcock.
It is contrary to law in the United States to import game which is illegally exported from Canada, and the United States and state authorities enforce this law.
Under the Export Game Act a visiting sportsman may come into Canada and shoot woodcock, wild turkey, or prairie fowl under
Export Act
[Stage Direction]
a permit issued by the province, but on returning to his home in the United States he will find that he cannot import into that country the game which he legally shot in Canada. We had a case which illustrates the point very clearly. The chief game warden of New Brunswick was endeavouring last year to make arrangements with United States authorities so that United States sportsmen who lawfully killed woodcock in New Brunswick might take their birds home with them. We were obliged to point out to him, when he referred the matter to us, that sections 5 and 6 of the Export Act prohibit all export of woodcock from Canada. In consequence, these tourists who came in for the particular purpose of shooting this kind of game in Canada found that the game which they had legally shot they were prohibited from taking home with them. Provincial authorities have found themselves in a similar position in that game legally shot in one province could not be taken into another province, but they now have provincial acts whereby under permit a person may legally shoot game and legally take it out of the province to his home.
The whole purpose of this bill is to eliminate sections 5 and 6 of the Export Act. The whole matter has been before the dominion wildlife officials, who have pointed out the difficulty, and they say that the Export Game Act now covers- all that is required and that sections 5 anl 6 of the Export Act are therefore redundant and operate as a hardship against visiting tourists and sportsmen who may wish to take the game they shoot out of the country.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to say just a word to express my full approval of what is here being done. I would like the minister to tell me, though, where any wild turkeys are to be found in the Dominion of Canada. It may be that what is so referred to is the sandhill crane. Wild turkeys on this continent are not found north of the Mason and Dixon line. So that is another reason why we should eliminate this "export" of "wild turkeys" from Canada.
What I have in mind, and what the minister has said in this connection is so true, is that in certain parts of western Canada we have enjoyed the visits of United States sportsmen, particularly in our pheasant areas, areas largely confined to irrigation districts until a few years ago. The increase in number of these birds, brought in by a few private people, of whom fortunately I was one, reads like a romance of wild life; and I am happy to know that this stupid provision will not now hinder our friends from coming and taking home with them their game. We used to be able to do so if we plucked them. I do

not know whether some disease was the occasion for that provision, but it all seemed to be stupid.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice that it says in the Export Act:
5. The export in the carcass, or parts thereof, of (a) deer.
It does not mention moose or cariboo or any other wild animals. In the interpretation of "deer", are moose and caribou included?


Mr. GLEN:: In the interpretation section of the Game Export Act:
(b) "game" means the carcass or any part of the carcass, including the skin, of any wild animal, domestically raised fur-bearing animal, wild fowl or wild bird.


John Ritchie MacNicol: WThy would it not be
put in the bill? The same would apply to a bear.


James Allison Glen: I am not speaking now of the Game Export Act, which is now the law. We are dealing with the Export Act, not the Game Export Act. We are eliminating from the Export Act provisions which are redundant and which conflict with the Game Export Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I quite agree, but does the act prohibit the exportation of bear or moose?


James Allison Glen: Except under licence by the provincial authorities. Section 3 of the Game Export Act provides:
3. No person shall knowingly,
(a)	take, carry, send, ship, or have in possession for the purpose of taking, carrying, sending or shipping or receive for shipment or transmission beyond the limits of the province within which such game was killed any game except under the authority of an export permit duly issued under the laws of such province;
(b)	except as in this act otherwise provided, have in possession, within Canada beyond the limits of the province within which such game was killed, any game not the subject of an export permit issued as aforesaid.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Should that not be repealed too?


James Allison Glen: We have not considered that. The migratory birds officials, thought these actions should be eliminated, and we are dealing with it only as far as the Export Act is concerned, not the Game Export Act. That can be a matter of discussion later.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There are no migratory birds in here at all. We had a prohibition against the export of certain migratory birds and animals, and we are merely getting rid of that.

Quartz Mining


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Those not mentioned there we really are not concerned with ?


James Allison Glen: We are not concerned with
them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The prairie fowl,-whatever they are: I have never heard of them.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any idea what quantity it is anticipated would be taken across the border? Also, will he tell .is if this measure is reciprocal; is there a similar act in the United States legislation which allows game shot in the United States to be brought back to Canada?


James Allison Glen: I have no knowledge of any such act as far as the United States is concerned. We are now regulated by the Game Export Act, which is the law in Canada, passed in 1941, which gives provincial authorities the power to issue permits for the killing of game and the taking of game into the different provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. QUARTZ MINING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 61. to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Persons who may enter and locate and lands subject to entry and location.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister make a statement on this section?


James Allison Glen: This bill has been submitted at the request of those who have been dealing with mining in the Yukon. It has been the subject of a good deal of discussion, and I am glad to say that I have had the privilege of having the hon. member for Yukon deal with this matter, because he knows more about these matters than, probably any other person in the house. He has made representations to me coming from the miners of Yukon and from those who are interested in mining, that it is necessary that this should be done in order to protect as far as possible the rights of miners who are now going in.
In consequence of the activities which are now taking place in Yukon and elsewhere, it was felt that the provisions of this bill would
render to those miners who are going in prospecting and endeavouring to locate claims a protection of their operations. The idea of the bill is this. Formerly under this act one could only have the right to have mineral claims to a certain number. These may now be increased in number and the owners of these properties will have the right to consolidate their claims. For instance, subsection 2 and 3 provide:
(2)	Subject to section forty-five of this act during any period of twelve months no person shall be entitled to locate, whether personally, as attorney for another or by an attorney, more [DOT] than seven mineral claims in the aggregate within a distance of ten miles from any other mineral claim (making a total of eight mineral claims) located by him personally, as attorney or by attorney, during that period.
(3)	Every power of attorney authorizing a person to enter, locate, prospect or mine pursuant to subsection one of this section shall be filed with the mining recorder before the entering. locating, prospecting or mining is undertaken.
The idea is that where formerly a man made a claim he could stake only three claims within twenty days. In the meantime, when he had located the claims and had induced other prospectors to come in there, they might file adjoining claims, with the consequence that he might be deprived of all the effort and expense to which he had been put in making the original discovery. The bill gives him the right to have eight claims registered in his own name, by himself or by attorney. The matter has been carefully considered, and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has been extremely helpful in conveying the wishes of the people in the north with regard to the staking of claims. I am satisfied that this is a proper provision to be made for the benefit of all parties concerned.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I may add a word or two to what the minister has said. The Yukon Quartz Mining Act is the legislation under which lode or hard-rock mining is done in Yukon. The act was first passed as it is now, with one slight amendment, as chapter 74 of the acts of parliament of 1924. I was member for Yukon at that time, and after consulting with the miners of Yukon I drafted an act, submitted it to the then Minister of the Interior, the Hon. Charles Stewart, in whose department Yukon was administered, who in turn submitted it to his law officers. The act was drawn, submitted to the house and then to a special committee, was finally adopted, and has been the law in Yukon since 1924. It has proved very satisfactory; but as mining is developed up there, changing to some extent from mining of placer gold to lode gold mining, it has been found that certain amendments are required and they have been clearly explained by the minister.
Placer Mining

The main object of the bill is to allow the prospector or miner to stake a group of eight claims. As the law now stands, he can stake only one in his own name and two under powers of attorney, and these powers of attorney must be accompanied by sworn evidence that the persons giving the powers of attorney have made it possible for that miner to go on that trip. Had it not been that the mining recorders and officials of Yukon had interpreted that clause generously, few claims would have been staked under it. This will eliminate any difficulties in that respect, inasmuch as it will allow a man to stake a group of claims sufficiently large to attract capital to its development. The other sections are equally important and will be dealt with section by section, I expect, in the committee. On some of these I may have something to say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 62, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Non-forfeiture of claims of service personnel.
James Allison Glen: This section is added, as the explanatory note indicates, for the purpose of protecting the rights of soldiers who had claims and to ensure that such claims would not be forfeited by reason of time spent in the service or for one year thereafter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Export of gold without payment of royalty.
James Allison Glen: This provision is inserted really at the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have found that transportation being so easily available, there being so many routes by which a person may leave the territory and go outside, there is a consequent smuggling of gold. They wish, therefore, to have these provisions in order that they may more effectively control the situation and, where necessary, prosecute those who are smuggling gold out of the country without paying royalties. Apparently there have been several cases which the

mounted police have investigated and, as I say, they desire these provisions the more effectively to control the situation.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the minister satisfied that $250 is an adequate fine?


James Allison Glen: We thought it would be sufficient.


George Hugh Castleden: It does not have to be a placer miner?


James Allison Glen: No.


George Hugh Castleden: He might be smuggling gold for half a dozen placer miners. It seems to me that $250 is small and that there should be an option to impose a heavier fine if the judge sees fit.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Subsection 4 provides that where any peace officer has reason to suspect that any person has committed or is about to commit an offence described in section 83 he may without warrant search him or any of his belongings. Surely that is giving a large amount of power to a police officer. If he suspects that a man is about to commit an offence he can search him or his belongings without a search warrant. Is there any strong justification for retaining that section, particularly this part of it which states that he is about to commit an offence?


James Allison Glen: One must take into consideration the place where these offences are likely to be committed. A good deal would depend on the observation of an officer who sees something which he knows is contrary to the usual practice. If he does not have that power in order to make the search, then I am afraid that he would lose the opportunity quickly if he did not act immediately and expeditiously in doing it. I do not think there is anything unusual in such a section. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are anxious that it should go in.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with the hon. member for Calgary East. I do not think this parliament should ever pass sections like subsection 4 except in narcotic cases. It seems to me that we have to permit such highhanded procedure by police officers in such matters. My suggestion to the minister is that he should eliminate section 4. He should increase his penalties in subsection 1. In other words, let us have a strong deterrent, but let us not extend the position which existed in legislation during war time. Of necessity that kind of legislation exists in war time. But let us not permit a mounted policeman or any other peace officer the right to go-without penalty against him-and search people's belongings, clothing and houses. The penalty provided in subsection 1 is a term not exceed-

Placer Mining
ing three months' imprisonment and fine of $250. My thought is that if you made that a fine of $1,000 minimum and a period in gaol of three years, and in default-that is optional with the court-of payment of the fine imprisonment for at least two years you will accomplish everything you are seeking to accomplish here; in fact you will accomplish it much better than you will in this way.
In his explanatory notes the minister has said that these things are necessary because there are now more ways of leaving Yukon than there were in the old days. I appreciate that; but we shall never have enough mounted policemen in Yukon, having regard to the different and new methods of travel, to search everybody who comes out. What happens? I gather that this is high-grading. An organization which is mining finds that it is short of some raw gold. They can fairly well confine that, having regard to the circumstances, and they usually give the police a lead. Warrants are now to be found in Yukon much more easily than in the old days. There are more places where you can find them than you could heretofore. My serious suggestion to the minister is that he should increase his penalties. I do not think they are nearly large enough, having regard to the conditions under which mines operate in that country. He should increase the penalties to the point of severity, but he should eliminate adding one more place where a peace officer, even though he be a mounted policeman, can search a person, his boat, his motor car, his aeroplane, his home or even his clothing, and even his friends; I imagine they are covered. The peace officer may even take that kind of action without a warrant.
A warrant can be obtained only on the ground that some person pledges his oath that he has reason to believe that an offence has been or is going to be committed. If the magistrate so wishes he may put that person on oath and ask him the grounds for his belief. That is normal, ordinary procedure. With great respect I am going to suggest to the minister that he reconsider this section.


George Black: I quite agree with the hon. member for Calgary West, and with all due respect to the minister, that the penalties provided by section 83A should be increased. As I see it, a fine not exceeding $250 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a sentence to both such fine and such imprisonment is altogether too light to create any fear in wrongdoers, thieves or high-graders.
I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Calgary West or with others who object to subsection 4 because, having lived all my life in Yukon and having seen
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police up there, I know that no innocent person will be inconvenienced by them, and the baggage of no one will be searched unless the police have good reason to suspect that it has high-grade gold or stolen material in it. So far as I am concerned I should like to see the subsection stand as it is drafted, but I would suggest to the minister that the penalty for high-grading or theft of gold or export of gold without a proper permit should be increased.
Mr. HAZEN; I cannot sit in this committee and allow this section to pass without taking objection to it. It is a principle of our law that every person who is accused of an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Under this section a person does not have to be accused of an offence before the mounted police can, if they suspect that he is about to commit an offence, proceed against him.


George Black: No; they may search him.


Douglas King Hazen: Yes, proceed against him and search him. The section reads:
Where any peace officer has reason to suspect that any person has committed or is about to commit an offence . . .
A peace officer is no wiser than any other person. How he can form a judgment as to whether or not a person is about to commit an offence, or suspects that a person is about to commit an offence, is more than I can understand. Legislation of this kind should not be passed by this committee.
The minister said that we must take into consideration the place where the offence is committed. Well, this place is Yukon territory. In Yukon territory there are places like Dawson city, which is a town of some size, where there are police officers and where I suppose there is a form of municipal government. Why should the police of Dawson city be permitted, because they suspect a person is about to commit an offence, to take any action against that person under the principles of the law under which we live in this country? As I say, I cannot let this section pass without protesting against it. It should be eliminated from the bill.


Alan Cockeram: How does this section compare with similar sections in provincial acts?


James Allison Glen: In this matter we are dealing not with the question of high-grading but with the question of royalties which should be paid. As I said before, conditions are such that any person leaving would be doing so with such expedition that the officer would be unable to obtain a warrant in time to
Placer Mining

seize the gold and exact the royalty due upon it. I agree with the hon. member for Yukon that subsection 4 should be retained. I have no doubt that any officer dealing with these matters, having some idea and knowledge of what rvas happening, would have direct evidence in his own mind that such a thing was being done; and if he did not take action immediately he would not be able to catch the person he suspected. As far as the penalty is concerned there seems to be a disposition to regard it as too lenient. The hon. member for Calgary West suggests a rather extreme penalty of $1,000 and a term not exceeding three years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. I would be willing to have an amendment moved to that effect, provided that upon summary conviction a person would be liable to a fine of not more than $1,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to both suo'h fine and imprisonment, if my colleague would move it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


William Henry Golding: Will that amendment be to paragraph (f) of section 1?


James Allison Glen: That is in section 2 of the bill, subsection 1; the words "two hundred and fifty" in line 22 to be deleted and the words "one thousand" substituted therefor; and in lines 24 and 25 the words "three months" to be deleted and the words "three 3Tears" to be substituted therefor.


William Henry Golding: The committee has heard the amendment read by the minister. Shall section 2 carry as amended?


Mr. HA  ZEN@: No. I should like to ask the minister this question. Is the export of gold without paying a royalty a tremendously serious offence? Is it any more serious than many of the offences which are now dealt with in our criminal code and for which the penalty is very much less? How do this offence and this penalty compare with many of the provisions in the criminal code having to do with the same matters?


George Black: With all due respect to the hon. member for St. John-Albert, I think the criminal code would be improved by making those penalties much more stringent than they are now. They are too light. They do not create any fear on the part of criminals. Even with the proposed amendment, increasing the maximum fine to $1,000, a convicting magistrate or judge may make the fine not more than $10 if he wishes, depending upon the circumstances of the case. Because

we say "not to exceed one thousand dollars," that does not mean in every case the person convicted will be fined that amount, or that he will be imprisoned for three years. He may get only three months, within the judgment of the convicting magistrate or judge.
As to its being a crime to take gold out of Yukon without paying the royalty, in old times when gold was exported almost entirely in its natural state, that is in the form of gold dust or nuggets, it was very easy to steal gold. At that time the mounted police had not only male searchers but female searchers to search women passengers. Before a person was allowed to leave Yukon he or she was searched for gold, if they had any reason to suspect that he or she would be taking out that gold. "Even within the past two years gold was stolen in its natural state from one of the big dredging machines up there. They noticed that a theft had been committed, and also that a couple of members of the crew had quit within a short time. So the police met these men at the airport when they were about to board a plane and made them open up their grips; and there was the gold dust. They did not wait for a warrant to do that; if they had done so the men would have been out of the territory and into the United States. I think the subsection should remain just as it is. To-day the great bulk of gold shipped from Yukon goes through the banks and is sent out in gold bricks, of a value not less than $10,000 each. It is almost impossible to steal those; they are too bulky and thieves cannot get away with them. But in the natural form of gold dust and nuggets it is easy enough to steal and conceal, so that I think the penalty should be severe, and I belive the police officers should be given a free hand to discover and search any thieves.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Yukon. It is important that we realize that laws which are necessary for a city like Calgary or Saint John are not applicable to these northern areas. We must recognize that one who seeks to evade his responsibility in the payment of royalties is trying to cheat his fellow citizens, and all this section asks is:
Where any police officer has reason to suspect that any person has committed or is about to commit an offence ... or has in his possession or in his belongings any gold in respect of which the royalty . . . has not been paid, such police officer may without warrant search such person and his belongings. . . .
If that provision is not made, as the hon. member for Yukon points out, a person may be out of the country by plane within a very short time. Most of us have our baggage examined for customs purposes whenever we

Placer Mining
cross the international boundary, and we do not particularly object. If the individual has no gold that he is trying to take out of the country without paying the royalty, no serious damage will be done. So that I think the hon. member for Yukon is quite right in urging that this section should be retained in its present form.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: In listening to this debate, one would think gold is one of our most precious metals. Actually I believe it is one of the least important at this time. If we are to live up to the Bretton Woods agreement, which w'e talked about so much, we should not be so worried about gold just now. However, I rose to say that I am opposed to any increase in the penalty in subsection 2; and as far as that is concerned I am entirely opposed to subsection 4. After all, we are dealing with human beings, whether they are in gold mining areas or anywhere else, and here we are giving police officers the right to go through a person's belongings. It will be noted that in the second last line it says, "and any articles believed to be bis belongings." They do not even have to know for sure that the belongings are those of the person they are searching; they may search the belongings of other people. I believe this is placing too much power in the hands of the police, and I want to record my objection to both subsections.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wonder if we could get together on this. I have a suggestion to make with respect to subsection 4.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if we could clear up section 2. Shall subsection 1, of section 2 carry as amended? Then we can go on.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you not think they are definitely related, sir?


William Henry Golding: Go ahead.


George Black: No; they have
nothing to do with each other.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My hon.
friend says they have nothing to do with each other, but surely what we are trying to do here is to prevent crime or, once we find it, to punish it. The deterrents which I suggested to the minister, and which he adopted, in exacting greater penalties under subsection 2, were as a deterrent to the crime itself.
With respect to subsection 4, we find .the words:
Where any peace officer has reason to suspect that any person has committed or is about to commit an offence . . .
I wonder if we cannot arrive somewhere by adding the word "sufficient" before the word "reason", and then eliminating the- words "or is about to commit". I have had occasion to say before in the house that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are a very fine force of men. But we all know that you cannot have four or five thousand men-and I think their . numbers must be about that by this time- and have them all saints. It seems to me the wishes of the minister would be met by adding the word "sufficient". He would meet those cases where it is suggested that someone has heard a person has done something and escaped by aeroplane. Then such a person may have been picked up at the end of his journey, a search made, and the person taken from the aeroplane. In that instance the officer would have sufficient reason for believing that an offence had been committed.
In connection with a failure to pay royalties on gold, how can it be said that we suspect a person is about to commit an offence? The offence is the removal of gold from Yukon territory.


George Black: Not necessarily; in most instances it is stolen gold.


Arthur Leroy Smith: High-grading, if you like.


George Black: No, not highgrading.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect to the hon. member for Yukon may I say that this does not deal with theft; rather it is a matter of failing to pay royalties. I am accepting the minister's word for that, because that is what he said only a minute ago. How can it be said a person is about to remove gold? If that is all, how can a [DOT] search help? If a man has gold in his pocket or his pouch-and perhaps the hon. member for Yukon is thinking of that night on the marge of lake Labarge they cremated Sam McGee-


George Black: That is just rubbish.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But delightful rubbish, by the way.


George Black: And you do not entertain the committee with it, one bit.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It would assist an officer in finding someone who is about to commit an offence.


George Black: With all due respect,
I cannot see why members should be so filled with fear that some crook is going to be inconvenienced-and that is all it means. If a person has not stolen gold, or has not gold
Placer Mining

on his body or on his person, he will not be inconvenienced by the officers. One hon. member mentioned that when one crosses the boundary the customs officers search the baggage. I have seen them search their persons. The suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary West would make it even more drastic than it is now. I am all for subsection 4 as it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest to the minister that the words "or is about to commit" be deleted. The hon. member for Yukon has referred to the searching of baggage by customs officers, but I would point out that that is a different matter altogether. They lay open the bags and take a cursory look, but that is a different matter altogether from permitting police officers to have power to search one's person or belongings, simply because there has been a suspicion that someone may be going to commit an offence. It is bad enough to give power to a police officer to make a search when he has good reason to suspect that an offence has been committed. This section will allow such officers to search anyone at any time in Yukon.


James Allison Glen: The words in the section are:
Where any peace officer has reason to suspect that any person has committed or is about to commit an offence.
He does not commit the offence until he is actually outside the territory and evading the payment of royalty. If we eliminate from the section the words "or is about to commit" we take the teeth from it. What would happen would be that a peace officer would know about a man who is about to commit an offence, namely, of his intention to leave the territory in a hurry, by aeroplane, train or team-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or boat.


James Allison Glen: Unless the man is searched at that time, the man will have left the territory; the offence will have been committed and the officer left in a position where he could do nothing. If those words were taken out the section would not be effective.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and
Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 63, respecting the boundaries of certain national parks.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as this bill, if enacted, will divest the crown of certain areas of land in certain national parks, title to which is at present in the crown. The governor general has been informed in respect thereto, and has given his consent to consideration of the bill.
Gordon Graydon: Should that not have been done before? Is this the proper time to indicate the assent of the crown to this legislation?


James Allison Glen: Yes, and I am informed that it is. This is the time that that should be done, namely before the question is put on second reading.


Gordon Graydon: With great deference to the minister I should think it is a strange procedure if the parliament of Canada can get as far as second reading before obtaining the consent of the governor general, and acquainting the house with that fact. I think something must be wrong, somewhere. It is certainly new to me; I never heard of this procedure before.


James Allison Glen: I think the hon. member for Peel has in mind a resolution involving a payment of money, in respect of which it should be indicated that His Excellency the Governor General has given consent. But that is not this case. This is not dealing with a question of money but divesting the crown of parts of areas in the parks, and I am instructed by the law officers that that statement should be made before the motion is put.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
James Allison Glen: I should explain to the committee that although Banff park is described by metes and bounds in the National Parks Act, the boundaries of Banff park were not surveyed until 1940 when on instructions from the surveyor general a survey was made and boundary posts set up. Following the survey, an official map of the park was prepared.
This map was approved and signed on behalf of the Dominion of Canada by the Hon. T. A. Crerar, Minister of Mines and Resources, under authority of an order of His Excellency the Governor in Council and on behalf of the province of Alberta by the Hon. N. E. Tanner, Minister of Lands and Mines. An original signed copy of the said map was filed in the land titles office for the South Alberta land registration district of Calgary on the 18th April, 1941.

National Parks
Two small parcels of land not formerly in the park are included within the boundaries of the park, as set out in schedule A. One parcel containing approximately 210 acres was acquired as a site for the eastern gateway. The other parcel comprising one-sixth square mile due to an adjustment of the boundary made on the survey of the park is added with the approval of the province. Total area added is approximately one-half square mile.
The total area of the park as described in schedule A is 2,585 square miles more or less.
Then as to Kootenay Park, the original agreement known as the Banff-Windermere road agreement which was approved by the dominion government by orders in council dated the 14th and 20th March, 1919, and ratified by an Act of the provincial legislature known as the Banff-Windermere Road Agreement Ratification Act, being chapter 5, British Columbia statutes, 1919, contained the following provision:
(4) The said province will grant to the dominion government a strip of land along the said Banff-Windermere road as laid out and completed to an approximate width of five (5) miles on each side thereof; provided always that, as far as possible, the crests of the mountains shall constitute the outside boundaries of the said area.
Kootenay park as established by order in council, P.C. 827, in 1920 included the area granted by the province of British Columbia.
A small part of the park unsuitable for park purposes was removed from the park area by order in council, P.C. 209, of February 2, 1922, following an arrangement with the province.
An official survey of and map showing the boundaries of Kootenay park were made under instructions from the surveyor general.
Upon completion of the survey, it was found that the park area varied considerably from the area mentioned in the original agreement, but the principle set out in the proviso of section 4 of that agreement was maintained in that the survey fixed the boundaries of the park along the crest of the mountains.
The provincial government of British Columbia, upon the completion of the survey and map, implemented the above-mentioned statute, chapter 5, British Columbia statutes, 1919, by passing order in council No. 810 of August 8, 1928, approving of the survey and the boundaries fixed by the survey. The boundaries of Kootenay park, as surveyed, are set out in schedule A to the bill.
The area of the park when established in 1920 was estimated at 587 square miles. Approximately seven square miles were removed from the park in 1922. Upon completion of the survey, the area of the park was established as 543 square miles, more or less.
Next is Riding Mountain park. The department acquired a number of small areas comprising in all slightly less than two sections with some pieces of roadway as an addition to the Riding Mountain park. These areas lie immediately south of the townsite of Wasagaming, the headquarters of the park. They were specially required to round out the park in this important section. The area being added consists of 962.3 acres.
This is similar to what was done in connection with Banff park. They had to add a portion of land at the south gateway in order to protect the entrance and prevent the building of hotels and the erection of other buildings at the gateway of the park.
The two small areas being withdrawn from the park were former sites of the forest officer's headquarters when the park area was a forest reserve. These two areas are outside the .main park area.
Upon the establishment of the park a more intensive administration of the area was organized under which it was found advisable to locate the park wardens inside the park. The improvements upon these two small areas have been disposed of and the said areas are not now being used as they are in the centre of a farming district. It is considered they should be available for agricultural purposes. The total area of the two parcels being withdrawn is 320 acres.
The total area of the park is approximately 1,148 square miles.
Then Point Pelee park. The areas being added to Point Pelee park comprise:
(a)	Part of a number of squatters' holdings which the department purchased from the estate of Joseph W. Post, together with some adjoining lands, the title to which was in the crown in the right of the dominion but which were not included in the park;
(b)	Two lots in a subdivision of lot one of the squatters' holdings which the department acquired at a tax sale;
(c)	With the formal consent of the local municipality. the department expropriated the roads inside the park boundaries.
The total area of the parcels being added to the park consists of 255-03 acres. The total area of the park is 3,869 acres, including the additions.
I come next to Georgian bay islands parks. Flowerpot island, which it is desired to include in the Georgian bay islands park, is located at the head of the Bruce peninsula.
The island was surrendered by the Chippewa Indians on the 5th day of June, 1856, and was acquired for park purposes from the Department of Indian Affairs on the 6th December, 1930.
National Parks

With the addition of Flowerpot island, Georgian bay islands parks will consist of Beausoleil island (2,712 acres), Flowerpot island (475 acres) and some 28 smaller islands (251 acres), a total area of approximately 3,438 acres.
Mr. MaoNICOL: Have squatters any rights there now?


James Allison Glen: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Beausoleil Island is where the sea cadet camp is held. Is that included?


James Allison Glen: The Georgian bay islands parks will consist of Beausoleil island, Flowerpot island and some twenty eight smaller islands, with a total acreage of 3.438 acres.
The next is Mallorytown landing park. The new scenic highway which the provincial government is constructing between Brock-ville and Gananoque runs through the Mallorytown landing park, one of the St. Lawrence Islands parks. The provincial government secured and transferred to the dominion a small area adjoining the park in compensation for the area taken up by the right of way for the highway.
The area of the parcel being added to this park is 3-38 acres.
The total area of Mallorytown landing park is approximately 10 acres.
St. Lawrence islands parks, consisting of 15 islands, contain approximately 190 acres.
The idea of this whole bill is to round out, under the surveys that have been made, the boundaries of the parks, including some portions and excluding other portions.
Mr. MaoNICOL: The schedule in connection with Point Pelee park exempts 200 feet along the foreshore. Would that not mean the spoiling of the part to be annexed?


James Allison Glen: We are adding to the park a piece of land bought from the estate of Joseph W. Post and other small parcels.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But it exempts a strip
of 200 feet along the foreshore. Unless the park owns the land lying along the foreshore, would this exemption not spoil it?


James Allison Glen: We need some of it and some we do not. What we have we bought from the estate of Mr. Post.


Douglas King Hazen: When was that?


James Allison Glen: Two or three years ago.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
leading the house if he will give us the order of business for to-morrow, and if I may be so bold as to say it, the definite order of business this time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I definitely resent the implication and the imputation contained in the remarks of the hon. gentleman. The order of business is only announced in this house as a matter of courtesy. To-morrow we shall deal with committee of supply.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What supply?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only supply that is possible to-morrow according to the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 15, 1946.