1946-08-09

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 347 for the relief of Fania Pusto-pedskaites Sobolevicius, otherwise known as Fanny Pustopedsky Sobolevicius.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 34S for the relief of Frances Mary Fisk Irwin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 349 for the relief of Lilias Clark Watt James.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 350 for the relief of Michael Gibson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 351 for the relief of Azaire Trottier. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 352 for the relief of Elizabeth Sharp Hamelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 353 for the relief of Lucille Aimee Cadieux Lacombe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 354 for the relief of Mary Wetstein Szabo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 355 for the relief of Brandla Lylberburg Guz, otherwise known as Bertha Silverberg Gass.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 356 for the relief of Natalie Kathleen Fearon Kirouac.-Mr. Baker.

Questions

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the government ordered any flags of the design recommended by the Joint Special Committee to select a Canadian flag?
2.	If so (a) when; (b) from whom; (c) in what quantity; (d) of what size; (e) at what price, and (f) under what authority?
3.	What is the delivery date of such flags?
Mr. ST. LAURENT;
1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of veterans homes built or being built in Moose Jaw?
2.	What is the estimated final cost?
3.	What proportion of this cost is being borne by the department?
4.	What was the cost of A. Humphrey's 1A house ?
5.	Has a veteran who is purchasing one of these holdings the right to inquire into its
cost?
6.	Has the department decided to build additional veterans homes in Moose Jaw?
7.	Will costs above $6,000 for each home which were incurred by the director be written off in accordance with the principle of the Act?


INCOME TAX-MARRIED COUPLES AND SINGLE PERSONS IN CERTAIN BRACKETS
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What is the number of married couples in Canada receiving an income of $1,500 or less?
2.	What is the number of single persons receiving $750 or less? [DOT]


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Normal wage-earner families, by earnings group of head, for Canada, 1941 census:
Earnings group	Number
Total	 1,214,858
-$1,450	 824,871
$1,450+	 373,713
Not given	 16,274
Note: This includes only the earnings of the head.
2.	Single wage-earners, by earnings group and sex, for Canada, 1941 census:
Earnings group Total Male Female
Total	
1,328,030	740,205	587,825-$450	
643,66S	339,314	304,354$450-$949 ...	442,885	232,761	210,124$950+	
220,476	153,649	66,827Not given ..	21,001	14,481	6,520
Note: Persons on active service on June 1, 1941, are not included in these tables.


H.M.C.S. DOCKYARD, HALIFAX-TRUCKS
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many trucks are in storage at HAI.C.S. Dockyard, Halifax?
2.	How many trucks, if any. have been declared surplus from H.M.C.S. Dockyard, Halifax?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Fifty-nine: all declared surplus and awaiting disposal by War Assets Corporation.
2.	Seventy-four.


VETERANS LAND ACT-COMPARATIVE AVERAGE COST PER HOUSE
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What was the average cost per house built under the Veterans Land Act at Haney, Mission, Chilliwack, Kamloops, Edmonton and Ottawa for (a) lumber; (b) cement; (c) bricks; (d) electrical fittings; (e) plumbing; (f) supervision: (g) management fees; (h) overhead?
2.	What was the average cost for land per holding?
3.	What was the cost of construction per cubic foot?


EXPORTS OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS-EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By years from 1939, how much was paid by farmers to the equalization fund of the Canadian Wheat Board on exports of oats and barley to the United States?
2.	In the same years, was there any equalization payment by primary producers of mineral, forest and fishery products?


ARMED FORCES-RESIDENTS OF YUKON DISCHARGED IN VANCOUVER
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Are members of the armed forces, residents of Yukon, on leave in Yukon, employed there preparatory to discharge, taken to Vancouver, British Columbia for discharge and then returned to Yukon?
2.	If so, is this done at public expense?
3.	What does it cost the public treasury to send such a man to Dawson, Yukon, to take him from there to Vancouver for discharge from the army and on discharge to return him to Dawson, Yukon?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the Department of National Defence, and/or the Department of Labour, and/or the Department of Justice, and between any one or
Public Health

more of said departments, since January, 1944, to date, in connection with the improper use of army rejection or medical discharges at Camp Borden, wherein one Arnold (also known as William Horrigan), allegedly along with one Bagley utilized army rejection or medical discharges which had been signed in blank by former Major J. A. Elliott, A.19, R.C.A.S.C.



PUBLIC HEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, who I understand is Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that there is such widespread public concern over the large increase in the number of cases of infantile paralysis in certain sections oi Canada, would the minister indicate to the house how the situation stands at present and what steps have been or can be taken in connection with the spread of the epidemic.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank
the hon. gentleman for having given notice of the question, and I may tell him the matter is being looked into. For the last day or two the acting deputy minister of health has been obtaining reports from the various provincial departments of health, and at a later date, probably by to-morrow, I shall be able to give a more complete answer to the question.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister
might indicate the number of cases reported so far and how they compare with the number in previous years when the epidemic was at its height in Canada.



RESTRICTION ON CARRYING OF CAMERAS BY VISITORS TO PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may. In these days record numbers of tourists and visitors, from both within and without Canada, are going through the parliament buildings. From some of these has come the suggestion, rather than complaints, perhaps, that there be a relaxation of the waitime restriction on the carrying of cameras with which they may take pictures from the peace tower. There are two reasons why this might be done. In the first place there is considerable disappoint-
ment on the part of those who find they have to check their cameras at the door. In the second place the hard-working members of the staff are finding the inconvenience and burden much greater than normally is the case, because of the fact they have to undertake these checking arrangements as the tourists come in. I wonder if Your Honour would be good enough to look into the matter and see if something could not be done.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The remarks of the hon.
member have been noted with great interest, and will be given careful consideration.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. J. McCUAIG (Maple Creek):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Has the government given consideration to the propriety of either preferring charges against Doctor Sbugar or of reinstating him in the position formerly held by him in the government employ?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The answer is yes. My information is that charges were laid against Doctor Shugar yesterday.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McCULLOUGH (Assdniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have before me a letter from the district superintendent of the soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act in Alberta, from which I should like to quote the last paragraph:
We have at the present time a large backlog of appraisals for veterans who have already been qualified and are arvaiting establishment, and I regret that due to shortage of staff we are unable to make the appraisal you requested.


James Horace King: Order. It is a well known rule that questions on the orders of the day must be brief and to the point.


Edward George McCullough: This is an urgent matter. In view of the backlog of appraisals and the fact that veterans want to settle on the land, will the minister now tell the house whether he is increasing his staff so that appraisals may be expedited and veterans rehabilitated?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): My answer is that the staff

Foreign Exchange Control
will be increased according to the necessity of the occasion, and policy will be announced from time to time.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 195, respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency or nonresidents.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Chairman, this is a bill of great importance and one which no one in the committee should vote for lightly, without consideration as to whether it needs modification. I propose at the outset to state my conclusions in the hope that I may thereby indicate a certain moderation, and perhaps get sympathetic consideration for the succeeding remarks I shall make.
I am not prepared to say that with the knowledge the government has there may not be a valid argument for the continuance of these powers, or some of them, for a period. But there are two points I wish to put before the committee the first of which has reference to the duration of the bill, which I hope very much the committee will agree to amend by putting a time limit on it. The second point I wish to bring to the attention of the committee is a matter which was put before the standing committee, and unsuccessfully, of trying to introduce at least some moderation, at least some beginning to a return to freedom which at the present time this bill entirely denies.
I wish to say a word about the importance of the bill. I put this particularly to supporters of the government; we should face the fact that we are trying slowly and painfully-and it is still doubtful whether successfully-to emerge from quasi-socialism with as large a measure of freedom as we can. Hon. gentlemen who sit to my immediate left will, I take it, favour this bill. But to them I should like to point out what was said the other day by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), something which I commend to all the members of his party. These were his words:
We are not opposed to private enterprise, but we demand that private enterprise shall take the risks if it takes the rewards.
I think that is a fair statement; I would not take away one wrord from it. But I suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that he might clarify the ideas of some other members of his party, notably the genial member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine), and the sometimes genial member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), because they seem to me constantly to use words which are entirely repugnant to the view expressed in the words I have just quoted of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
I believe it is worth saying this, because in my view the spirit in which we approach these things, particularly with the difficulties we are facing to-day, will be of great importance in the next few years. I resent more than I can say the remarks which I have heard in the house, remarks which were perhaps not made seriously, but which seem to indicate that any man who had been successful in private enterprise must have been either a hard, rapacious, overbearing man, or a crook. I am not saying this in respect of any particular person, nor do I suggest that those were the words used. But I do say that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has expressed a view in the matter which should be taken seriously by his supporters.
I suggest most earnestly that hon. members should consider carefully the powers given under this bill-rigid, uncontrolled, unlimited as they are. They should seriously consider whether it is necessary not only to give these powers, but to give them without any time limit. I had hoped, from the remarks of the Acting Minister of Finance when the bill was introduced, and when we passed second reading, that certainly he had an open mind on the subject of time. However, as I remember, he said later that the government had decided that it would leave the time unlimited.
As the acting minister has said, the government has decided, and I am never at all sure whether that means that the minister himself has. decided, or whether the government has made the decision. However that is a detail which perhaps is none of our business. At any rate, that was the attitude the acting minister took.
I ask the committee to look at these powers, and the reasons for which they were granted originally, and then I ask hon. members to consider whether it is necessary that these powers be continued indefinitely and in an unlimited fashion.
Foreign Exchange Control

The reason for asking these powers was, of course, the situation in which we found ourselves in 1939. Probably the basic reason was the expected flight of capital, particularly to the United States. After all, at that time Canada, a small country in point of population, was at war, whereas the United States, a large country was not at war. It would not have been surprising, therefore, if there had been a serious flight of capital, and I believe the use of these powers at that time was generally approved. I think the officials who exercised those powers exercised them with moderation, discrimination, sympathy and efficiency. I say that now so that nothing I may say later would seem to be a criticism of the way in which these powers were exercised.
I would say further that if ten years ago anyone had been asked to read this bill and to consider the powers it represents, he would have been horrified. He would have said, "Surely we have not come to that; surely we have not to give this board the power to search, the power to arrest, the power to make inquiries of all kinds, not by police officers, not by the ordinary officers of the crown but by agents of this board?" In war time we accepted that. I ask again, and I ask it as earnestly as I am capable of asking: Is it necessary to commit ourselves indefinitely to powers of that kind in a time which we call peace?
It is interesting to observe-this was frankly stated by the witness before the banking and commerce committee-that, as is natural, these powers were built up and based on inquiries and examinations made of the various foreign exchange control boards throughout the world. It is natural and to be expected that they would look at the German board among others. I am not criticizing that, but I suggest to members of this committee that it is worth recalling that it was powers just such as these which enabled Doctor Schacht to exercise the powers which he did. I suggest that when we consider these powers we should consider them as such. We should not consider them merely as powers which are exercised by amiable and pleasant gentlemen who have shown great discrimination and moderation in the use of them, but as powers which may not always be exercised1 by those same pleasant gentlemen, which may some time get into the hands of people we may not find so agreeable and so pleasant and who may find these powers most convenient for purposes of their own.
I want to make the point that there has been virtually no relaxation or diminution in

peace time of the powers which were contained in the wartime act. If there are any changes, they are trivial and of no consequence.
Briefly, let us look at the powers. I will divide them into two groups. There is the power over ordinary current account transactions, and there is the power over capital account transactions. The power over current account transactions, that is to say ordinary buying and selling between Canada and other countries, I think it is fair to say has been exercised in the least oppressive manner. Apart from the fact of getting permission and having to fill out forms, this power has been operated with as little inconvenience as possible. The board has the power to scrutinize and approve every transaction. What it exercises this power for is to make sure that transactions are genuine. An illustration given in the committee was that the board would not approve a transaction where some one wanted to buy a motor car in United States, and where obviously the price being paid was an inordinate one, one which would indicate that it was really concealing the export of capital. If you are going to have power at all, it is reasonable to expect that it would have to be exercised in that way.
The second power is over capital account transactions. In capital account transactions we have reached the point where the expert authorities whom we have set up have full control. I believe in experts as much as anyone, but I should like to quote a little jingle I heard the other day. Experts should be used for advice and not for control; experts should be on tap and not on top.
I want to come back to the experts, for whom as individuals I have great respect. The experts now exercise not only economic judgment but moral judgment or quasi-moral judgment on what the citizens of this country are doing. Let me give an illustration. If I am a manufacturer in Canada and wish to invest money in the United States to build a factory, other things being equal, the permission is likely to be granted. If the hon. member for Lake Centre wishes to make an investment in some stocks in the United States, it is almost certain that permission will be refused. I said to the experts, "Does not that mean that you are really exercising moral judgment?" I said to them, "I am more sympathetic to the idea that the man who wishes to invest money in the United States, if it is for the purpose, let us say, of building a factory there, should be permitted to do so, but I do not know whether a man who wishes to invest money there may not be doing just as useful an act." I could not possibly be sure, but this board is set up and it has power

Foreign Exchange Control
to scrutinize such acts and to reach a conclusion. Again I ask hon. gentlemen to consider whether they wish to give an indefinite life to a bill which does that.
One more argument, in fact almost the greatest argument given by the witness before the committee, was that it was necessary to establish this control in order to carry out our obligations under Bretton Woods. That is a complicated and difficult question, and I do not propose to go into the details at the moment. I have tried to consider it as well as I can. I believe that view is a very narrow, limited and basically unsound view. If I understand Bretton Woods correctly, it is set up for the purpose of preventing depreciation in exchanges. My feeling is that our duty is to maintain stability and to argue that the foreign exchange control board is necessary merely for the purpose of carrying out our obligations under Bretton Woods is to me in principle unsound and untenable.


Mr. ABBOTT:: I think he said that was only one of the reasons.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With deference to the minister I want to say that I read the evidence the other day. I think it is correct to say that it was not stated to be the exclusive reason, but on reading the evidence I was surprised to find the extent to which it was based on that. My own feeling, for what it is worth is that a more basic reason is that probably our trade with the United States will be out of balance for the next months, and that at the present time until sterling is made convertible we are not able to settle our deficits in the United States with sterling balances.
In considering this question of financial control we are in danger of being lulled into a false sense of security. I think we are in great danger of not appreciating the importance of this bill. In the case of other departments I think we have clear evidence which will demonstrate that they hope that the controls will eventually be done away with. I think the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) has indicated that, although sometimes I feel that he is building up new controls almost as fast as the old ones are done away with; nevertheless many of the old ones have been done away with. I think the same can be said of other ministers. I think that is because those departments have had a larger admixture of ordinary business men who have returned to their old occupations, and probably that has hastened relaxation of controls.
I submit to the committee that there has been no sign whatever of any disposition on 63260-278
the part of the Department of Finance to relax controls. I further suggest, that if this bill stays on our statute books for five years it will just rivet tighter all these fetters which we accepted as necessary during the war. There is another reason, and I put -this forward with great earnestness and with great respect to the experts. What are the experts? Let us consider what they are. Let me say again that I think they are useful people. Those of us who are not experts, who must rely perhaps only upon common sense, are helped by the advice of experts but, I thiu* in the last analysis decisions have to be left to men of common sense, and we hope men of some experience. Happily the experts are always divided. You are never left entirely alone when you disagree with some of them.
Here we have a situation where these people have had almost unlimited power for seven years. I ask any man in this house if he thinks it would be easy after he had had unlimited power for seven years, power which he feels he has exercised well, when he is much more articulate in talking about matters of finance than other people, to give up any of those powers? He would not give up a tittle of them. I made the suggestion-I do not know whether there was any great merit in it-that there should be a kind of token of a beginning of the restoration of a little freedom. But I was told that it would spoil the pattern, it would spoil the picture; there would be a little blur somewhere. That is the only thing I could make out of it.
I have great respect for the experts, but I think there is great danger in this. Experts believe that they are alw'ays dealing with exact things. Some experts are. If you are an expert in nuclear physics you can pretty well predict what will happen, although at Bikini the experts were not entirely in agreement. Generally speaking, though, they can predict exactly what is going to happen. But I charge that we have experts in finance who believe that finance is an exact science and that you can predict exactly what is going to happen there. I suggest to members of the house who are practical common sense business men that that is perfect nonsense, because it leaves out our good old friend human nature. I suggest that not in any partisan way, because this is far too important a matter to put it on any partisan basis. I have the hope that we may still persuade the minister to put this on an annual basis so that we can have another look at it, and I shall suggest later the reasons which I hope may be convincing. If we cannot relax it this year, when are we going to relax it?

Foreign Exchange Control

Shall we repeal the act? Will the government want that? No. These are things that are being put out of the sight of parliament so that parliament will have no chance to consider them further. I am not enough of an expert on procedure to know how it could come up again next year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: By refusing to vote the appropriation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With due deference, we do not get very far along that line.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And you do not try very hard when it comes to a vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That has not been a rewarding line of effort.
Now I want to say a word about the business community. I might be told that I am making a lot of fuss about nothing. The minister would not put it so crudely, but he might more delicately. He might fairly say: You are making a lot of fuss about this. But let us see what happened before the committee. Was the business community there to raise any questions? No; and I will tell you why they were not there-and this is perhaps the most important thing of all the important things that I have to say this morning. I will tell you 'why they were not there. First of all because business people do not like to come down here and say things that are unacceptable to the powers that be. The officials in the department have great power. I want to press that. I am not joking; I believe it with all my heart.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an interesting observation, anyway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I believe it is a true observation, which is much more important. Let us look at the facts. Our national income has doubled over ten years. Why? Because the dominion government was in business, because more than half our business was government business. Is there any mystery, then, in saying that people are a little shy of coming down here and saying things that governments do not like? Just examine the extent to which government is in business of all kinds, and see how much the income of business, even of the banks, depends on the good will of the government and of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the financial authorities. That is as true as we are standing here. That is the first thing.
The second thing-and I want to be frank about this and say that this is not so creditable to the business community-is that along with others it has been lulled into a false sense of
IMr. Macdonnell.]
security. They have a helpless feeling, if you like, and perhaps there may be some excuse for it. At any rate they were not here partly because they were afraid, and partly because -I say this in the hope that they may hear it-they have not considered this seriously enough. The third reason-and this is perhaps still less creditable to the business community, but I will say it because I am trying to be a witness to what I believe to be the truth-is that there are some people in the business community who have rather liked controls. I should like to quote to them what I quoted this morning from the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. Free enterprise, do not let us forget, in spite of all that has been said against it, has done remarkable things. Those who believe in it have to accept what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said. He said that if they are going to have the rewards, they must take the risks. I would reverse it and say that if they take the risks they must have some rewards. But at the present time a great many people are busy trying to arrange matters so that free enterprise cannot function, so that controls will damp it down.
Just let me repeat that. I want to say that if the business community were not here it was because they were afraid of this government's powers, and that is what power does. Those who exercise it, however sincere they may be, come to believe that ordinaiy people cannot look after their own affairs. I said to one of these experts, "It is really impossible for you to believe that ordinary people like ourselves can look after our own affairs." I am serious about that. If I had had that power for seven years I might feel as they do. They would have to jump out of their intellectual skins before they can believe we can carry on without their controls. They believe that they have greater wisdom and that they must tell us what to do.
An able lawyer made a remark to me that I think very interesting. He was a great cross-examiner and dialectician. He said, "You may think sometimes when I am examining business men that I am able to put questions about business that they cannot answer and make remarks about their own business which perhaps they could not make, and perhaps some people might get the idea that I knew more about their business than they did. But," he said, "I don't. A business man knows how to carry on his business. I only talk about it."
I come back and say that we have set up people over us who are highly articulate and who believe that finance is an exact science. They believe that ordinary people cannot be trusted to look after their own affairs. I know

Foreign Exchange Control
the minister has been a lawyer and a business man, and I submit to him that he cannot deny that that is true.
I want to say just one word about one aspect of that enormous power which this group of men, highly regarded' and highly respected, exercise. Sometimes I feel that I would not fear them so much if they were not so hard-working and respectable, if they were off wasting their time and the country's time. But I am afraid of men who have the power, and stay on the job exercising it all day and every day, and sincerely believe that they can do the job better than the people can run their own business themselves.
What is one of the powers we give to these men? I wish I had 'with me a book that was written by a distinguished financial authority, Mr. Graham Towers, now governor of the Bank of Canada, a book which was written in his unregenerate days when he was still an ordinary banker. In it you will find some interesting facts. It was written in those strange far-off days when the value of our dollar was fixed by supply and demand. I had hoped to have it here to quote from this morning. You will find what I have in mind at page 90 something.
What are we asked to do now? We are asked to allow foreign exchange-not to find its own level by supply and demand; and mind you supply and demand has made a pretty good job of it. Do not let anybody tell you that exchange was rocketing all over the place before it came under the control of these men, because it was only when the government stepped in and devalued the currency and stepped on and off gold that exchange began to fluctuate so widely.
We are asked now, first, to hand over to a group of men SI .500,000,000. and second, to give them an unlimited draft on the Canadian exchequer. Hon. gentlemen will see that is in the bill, and personally I think that is right if we approve the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The principle of the bill has already been approved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am nearly through. I understood that we had certain rights in committee. I had intended to speak when the Speaker was in the chair but unfortunately he went too fast for me. We are asked to hand over this huge sum of money to these men-let us be clear about this-so that they may have this huge amount of money to spend to back their judgment as to what the rate of exchange should be. That is what we are doing, and do not let us have any doubt about what we are doing. We are given this amount, though not
63260-278}
as of the present moment, because the figure we have is a few months late. However, that amount can be taken as approximately correct. It is a billion and a half, and a draft on the consolidated revenue fund to an unlimited1 amount to back their judgment as to what the level of the Canadian dollar should be. One of the members of the department said to me not long ago, "Doesn't the business community want a stable exchange?" I said, "Did you happen to notice that there was a ten-point drop the other day? That is not very stable." I am not criticizing that, but I am pointing out that if we are to look at it from the point of view of convenience of and assistance to business, it is not very helpful to go on at a certain level and then drop or rise ten points.
It has been suggested1 that a stable unfluc* tuating rate of exchange is desirable. It is, but does it look within the bounds of possibility as long as the world is divided into pockets controlled by independent governments? Is it not likely that the best that can be done is so to organize things that the variations in the rate between these currencies will rise slowly and not precipitately? Is it not true that the only way in which a constant rate of exchange between all countries can be maintained is by the constant matching of exports by imports? As has been said by Sir Josiah Stamp, "every import has an export order tied to it." Is not this a vital truth which those who undertake the impossible task of maintaining exchange stability by government ukase would do well to bear in mind?
I want to make in closing an argument for the limitation of time. I do not wish to repeat tiresomely what I said, but I should like to ask hon. members to bear in mind that if we leave this open, we must not imagine that it is going to be seriously considered every year. It is not going to be seriously considered every year. I will suggest some reasons why there is the strongest possible argument at the present time for giving this a one year duration and no more. First, I give the analogy of the emergency powers act, which is strictly limited as to time. I see no reason why this analogy should not apply. Second, I give the analogy, honoured by centuries of practice and principle in the British constitution, of the Militia Act. That comes back to parliament every year. Why? So that parliament can have control over that standing army which at one time was such a menace to liberty. Next I would like to say that an incident has occurred-I say this with great hopefulness to the minister-since this bill was introduced which I think is a very strong argument and,
I hope, might be even a compelling argument,
Foreign Exchange Control

and that is that the United States loan to the United Kingdom has been made, and under that loan the British have to undertake to make currency convertible on ordinary current account within a year. I want to make this point, which I believe is an important one. The real reason, in my opinion, why the government may be justified in some further extension of control is the danger of an unfavourable balance of trade with the United' States. In the old days we settled it around the corner through sterling. Sterling, being now inconvertible, is not available, but if sterling becomes convertible within the year, if it becomes available on current account, that danger will to that extent disappear. So I say with great earnestness and some hopefulness to the minister that that is a very important reason which has suddenly emerged.
I want to say a word on relaxation of controls. I intend to advance two reasons, in the hope that the minister may change his mind and that we shall have in this bill a signal, a token that some day we really do want to get back to whatever measure of freedom we can. As you come to read the bill you will find that there are strict, hard restrictions on the right of a man if he changes residence from Canada to the United States to take any money with him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Capital.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Capital, yes. The question was asked, suppose a man in Manitoba sells his farm for $15,000, and wants to go across the line to live and take the money with him; unless he can establish that he has, let us say, arthritis and cannot live in Manitoba, or that his wife's mother is ill or needs the family's presence in Dakota, or give some other reason which will satisfy the members of the foreign exchange control board, he cannot take his money with him. Now I suggested-I do not know whether it is a good proposal; there may be a better-as a kind of token or pittance of freedom,-could not the board fix an amount-I made it very elastic-say of ten or fifteen thousand dollars, which a man can take as of right; and I said, if they find that is too much, let them lower it later on. The figures we were given from past experience as to the amounts likely to be taken in that way were trivial, something like a million dollars or less, so there is no indication that the amount would be large. The minister kindly said that he would take it into consideration-, and I was hopeful for the moment that this tiny scintilla of freedom would be left. But when we came to the end of the road the minister said, "it cannot be done."

I cannot remember the minister's exact words, but what he said in effect was that the government had to retain liberty of action; the government had to decide that. At any rate this is my interpretation, and this is what I mean by saying that when you get in the hands of experts you cannot blur the picture in any way; you cannot change the pattern, it is whole hog or none. They cannot afford to give that tiny relaxation because they would be admitting a wedge; they would enable >us to come back next year and say, "Give us a little more; we got back a little bit of freedom last year, give us a little more this year", and that would not be good. So, having spoken so much longer than the minister approves,-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -although he is very generous in these matters, before I take my seat I want to reiterate that no one who does not want socialism should vote for this bill as it is now. I have some highly valued and respected friends who are socialists, and if they want to vote for this bill they are fully entitled to do so; but you cannot eat your cake and have it, and I say that no one who wants the return of freedom, no one who believes that we should try as soon as we can to let in such freedom as we can get-God knows it is little enough in this distracted world-nobody who does not make socialism his objective, who does not wish to travel along that path, should vote for this bill as it stands now.
I had an amendment here, but I am not quite sure whether this is the proper place to move it. May I read it, Mr. Chairman, and have you tell me whether I should move it at this time? I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops:
That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following as 1(a):
"This act shall continue in force for not more than one year from the date of proclamation."


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should think on that point that if such an amendment were moved it should come at the end of the bill. That is the usual place for a duration clause.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that the chairman's view?


The CHAIRMAN:: I would think that the proper place would be in connection with section 74, which provides that this act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation. I suggest that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario might move this amendment on that section.

Foreign Exchange Control


Mr. FULTON:: May I point out that the effect of the amendment, if it were adopted, would be in a sense to remove many of the objections which will be raised to the subsequent clauses of the bill as we come to them, and it might be advantageous to know now whether or not it will be accepted.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That is out of order. The amendment deals with the question of the duration of the act, and obviously it cannot be considered until we reach clause 74.


William Ross Macdonald: With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the considerations he has mentioned have no bearing upon procedure. I am asked by the member for Muskoka-Ontario a question with regard to procedure, and it is my opinion that the amendment should be withheld for the time being and moved when we come to section 74. Is that agreeable to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I suggest that we might save time if we were to allow the preceding sections to stand and have that section called now and the suggestion disposed of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly not. We will go ahead with the bill section by section in the usual way, according to the custom of parliament.


William Ross Macdonald: I take it that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has the leave of the committee to withdraw the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. Let it stand for the time being.


William Ross Macdonald: I simply wish to be sure that the amendment stands for the time being and is not under consideration as an amendment to clause 1.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might reply briefly to one or two comments made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. In the first place, the principle of the bill with reference to exchange control was approved when second reading was voted two or three weeks ago. Now there are only three ways of handling international exchanges. One is-


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would rather finish the statement I am about to make. However, if the hon. member wishes to put his question I will try to answer it.


John Thomas Hackett: I merely wanted to ask the minister whether it is fair to say that the principle of the bill was accepted. I think he will find it was stated that the bill should be referred to committee and that the house would then be in a better position to consider the actual method proposed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is wrong in that, because it was suggested that it should be referred to the committee before the principle was adopted and exception was taken to that proposal by the Minister of Finance, and second reading was given in the usual way approving the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, in the committee itself, has not challenged the necessity of some measure of exchange control, so that I think we may take it for granted that some form of exchange control has been approved by the house.
I was about to say that there are only three ways of handling exchanges. The first is to return to an unrestricted- gold standard, the law of supply and demand, and no one has risen in this house and suggested- that we should do that to-day. No country in the world is able to do it, with the possible exception of the United States, and I have heard no one suggest it. The second method is that which is proposed here, the -method of exchange control, and that is the method, I may tell the committee, which is in force I believe' in every modern countiy to-day- every industrial country, with the exception of the United States. Apart from that, I know of no country which is not adopting the exchange control method. The third method is what is known as the operation of an exchange equalization fund- whereby a country sets up a fund- to buy and sell foreign exchange. That is the third and last method, and I say to the committee that one of these three courses must be followed: free market, exchange control, or exchange equalization fund. This house has adopted the principle of exchange control.
My hon. friend has said that no one should vote for the measure as it stands who does not approve of socialism. Well, no one should have voted in approval of the Bretton Woods agreement who does not approve of socialism, because when the agreement came before the house for approval it was approved by my hon. friends opposite; and I d-o not need to tell them-I might have to tell some of them but not the . member for Muskoka-Ontario- that the Bretton Woods agreements imply a very definite measure of exchange control. I make that as an assertion and I do so without fear of successful contradiction. Now I am not going to argue to-day-
Foreign Exchange Control


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister will permit me, while I am sure I cannot contradict him successfully, I wish to call his attention to the fact that I do not accept that statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not expect my hon. friend to accept, but that is beside the point. As I say, I am not going to stand here to-day and argue the necessity of controls. That question has been argued ad nauseam as far as I am concerned, and I believe the great majority of the people of the country recognize that a measure of control is still needed. I repeat, I am not going to argue that point again to-day; nor am I going to go into any extended defence of those whom my hon. friend has referred to as experts. He has dealt in his usual charming way, and in broad general terms, with the way the experts are running the country.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The member for Rosedale says "hear, hear." That, too, was to be expected. Let me say, however, that I have had1 some limited experience in the last four or five years-I emphasize that word "limited"-with the way in which national affairs are run, and I say to the committee that this country is not being run by "experts."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Hal-ton suggests that I should amend my statement by adding the important qualifying "the"-the experts. What I meant of course was that the country is not being run by experts in the sense in which the member for Muskoka-Ontario used that term. In matters such as foreign exchange control and others, I believe profoundly that it is necessary to obtain the advice and assistance of the best experts one can get in these complex questions, and having heard that advice, if it commends itself to the judgment of those who have' the responsibility of taking decisions, then I say the advice should be followed. That is what has been done in this case.
I do not know that it would be appropriate for me to discuss at this stage the question of putting n time limit on the bill. I shall be glad to discuss the matter when my hon. friend's amendment, which has been allowed to stand, is before the committee. I dealt with it fully before the banking and commerce committee, as did my hon. friend, and there I gave reasons why the government felt it would be inadvisable to fix a time limit or duration after which the bill 
would expire. However, I shall deal with the question more fully when we come to the section.


Mr. QUELCH:: I had not intended saying
anything at this time, but after listening to the remarks of the member for Muskoka-Ontario I feel impelled to say a few words on the bill. I pointed out on a previous occasion that this group supported the measure because we believe that a foreign exchange control board is necessary to the welfare of Canada. To my mind the only people who have any need to fear a foreign exchange control board are those who indulge in speculation in foreign exchange. They are the only ones who might oppose it. The people who make a living by gambling in foreign exchange will be opposed to the measure because the only thing they do is for themselves and not for the good of the country.
We supported the bill on second reading, and after listening carefully to statements made by Progressive Conservatives in the committee, I do not think they advanced any views which will induce us to change our opinion. The member for Muskoka-Ontario has said he does not think the bill would have passed ten years ago. Many changes have taken place in the past ten years, and one of the greatest was the change that occurred last year when we became a party to the Bretton Woods agreement.
What amazes me is the fact that the member for Muskoka-Ontario criticizes this bill on the ground that we are setting up a foreign exchange control board for an indefinite period and that we shall have a bunch of experts working there. The important point is that parliament will exercise control over that body. The experts can be put out of operation at any time it is felt desirable to remove them or to amend the regulations. Last year when we set up the Bretton Woods agreement the Progressive Conservative party supported it, though we were setting up a bunch of international experts, putting them in for an indefinite period of time, responsible to no one, responsible to no court of the land, and not even responsible to the international court of justice. We did not hear any criticism at all from that party concerning that fact. I believe the foreign exchange control board will be needed as a permanent institution in this country. As the international situation improves we may be able to modify the regulations until they will operate in such a way as not to inconvenience the average ratepayer of this country.
I should like to deal with just one last point. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said

Foreign Exchange Control
the only people who would support this measure would be socialists. Let me point out to the hon. member that unless we stop the abuses of capitalism we are going to have socialism in this country.


Mr. IRVINE:: I can hardly avoid saying a word or two on this matter, inasmuch as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario made special reference to this party, and indeed to myself, which I appreciate. However, the minister and the hon. member for Acadia have so completely answered the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that perhaps it is not really necessary for me to say anything at all. The hon. member hitched his opposition to this bill to his contention for private enterprise, and went on to quote the hon. gentleman who leads this group as having gone on record in favour of private enterprise. I was looking up the reference from which I believe the hon. gentleman quoted, and I think I should repeat exactly what was said in order that there may be no misunderstanding. I am quoting from page 4099 of Hansard for this year:
We are not opposed to private enterprise, but we demand that private enterprise shall take the risks if it takes the rewards.
Of course we are not opposed to certain kinds of private enterprise.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit me to say that is exactly what I quoted?


William Irvine: I agree.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought the hon. member was correcting me.


William Irvine: No, I am not correcting the hon. gentleman; I am giving the setting in which that remark was made. Perhaps I should quote the rest of it:
In the second instance, we are proposing as a federal parliament to give complete exemption to the mining industry for three years. Those are two entirely different propositions. We are not opposed to private enterprise, but we demand that private enterprise shall take the risks if it takes the rervards.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was obviously indicating that his opposition to what was proposed by the government in respect to mines was on the ground that it was removing the risks from private enterprise yet permitting private enterprise to go away with the rewards, and he is opposed to that. That was his argument. Of course there is private enterprise in socialism. I shall not take the time now, but some day I will indicate to my hon. friend that he has no monopoly over any virtue there may be in private
enterprise. We want to see every person private enterprising, but for what? For private gain? No! We want to see them, on the contrary, private enterprising for the good of the state, the good of the nation, the good of the community. That is the private enterprise we are bound to support, and we do support it. So I think that part of my hon. friend's argument should be amply answered by that statement.


Mr. FLEMING:: It is not so.


William Irvine: I do not suppose it ever
would be to the hon. gentleman who made that remark. There are reasons for that, too, which perhaps I had better not go into now.
As has been pointed out, the principle of the bill was accepted by this parliament, and the bill was referred to the banking and commerce committee. We considered it very carefully; we heard all the opposition that flared forth in the evangelical eloquence displayed by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario this morning, but we found no reason to change our views in support of the measure.
The hon. member has raised the question whether power under this bill should not be fixed for a certain number of years, or whether it should be unlimited; "indefinitely" and "unlimited" were the two terms he used. Anyone knows that if you are going to carry out the object of this bill there are certain powers that go with that objective and which cannot be separated from it. There is no reason why we should be afraid of power. That power, finally, is in the hands of this parliament, and we are simply allowing a department to exercise an amount of power sufficient o do a certain job we have already said we vant done. If you restrict that power, then :he job will not be done; for every relaxation my hon. friend asked for in the committee would have left this bill of no effect, and would have allowed those who wished to do so to deal in exchange for private profit, to despoil the instrument which must be used by iny nation in doing business.
As to the time limit, as the minister said that can be discussed later; but I should think the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is badly mistaken if he believes we are ever going to return to what I have no doubt his party would regard as "normalcy." There is no such return; there is no such normalcy. As long as it is necessary to use an instrument of exchange I do not believe the nations of the world ever again will release that important instrument to the tender care of money mongers. I believe we have come to the end of that period. Whether it would be advisable
Foreign Exchange Control

to have this bill passed each year, just as a matter of form to please the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, is a matter for the minister to settle.
The hon. gentleman objected because he thought that in certain cases those adminster-ing the act would have to make what he regarded as moral judgments, as to whether this thing should be done or not; whether or not this grandmother should be allowed to go to Detroit to visit her daughter, and so on. Well, I do not know that there is any particular morality about such a decision, but if there is, I think it would be far better for us to have somebody to exercise a moral judgment than to leave it wide open for the immoral practices which would most decidedly ensue were no such safeguards as these placed upon our exchange. The hon. member knows this, but I wish to make the point clear: It is essential to protect the monetary instrument of a nation, not only in the interests of socialism but in the interests of free enterprise. I do not know of anything more likely to destroy the free enterprise my hon. friend so much admires than to allow over-enthusiastic free enterprisers to upset the value of currency. This, really, is the very thing he wishes to protect, so far as that goes, and I am quite aware of it. I am not supporting this measure merely because I am a socialist; I support it because it is the intelligent thing to do under any system, whether it- be one of private enterprise or one of socialism.
If I am not mistaken in his words, the hon. member said that the old uncontrolled system had done very well-or made some similar observation. I would refer the hon. member to the years which immediately followed world war I, when we had no such control, and when the bankers were the experts, if you like, who did the' controlling. Although I am not certain as to the year, I believe it was in 1924 when, on the advice of our hanking experts who had full control of all our financial instruments, Canada went back to the gold basis, and by doing so, we literally doubled our debt. Farmers had borrowed money when the dollar was worth about 55 or 60 cents. By going back on the gold basis they had to pay for 50-cent dollars with 100cent dollars, and they had to pay it back with much smaller prices received for their wheat. That one simple act, taken on the advice of the financial experts of that time, plunged Canada, as it had plunged every other nation in the world, into the greatest depression history has ever known. That is how they did it. But those who manipulate money can turn 
either deflation or inflation to their advantage, and they exercise their greed for profit by doing either when it suits their purpose.
I should like to say one word respecting what was said by the hon. member in winding up his speech, when he contrasted what to him were the objectionable restrictions in the bill with what he calls freedom. After all, that is just a word; we all use it. I am afraid many of us do not put much meaning into it when we use it. I must not now enter into an exposition of freedom; but I say simply this, that to use that word and to fling it at the House of Commons, as if security were being violated by this measure, is simply preposterous and ridiculous. It is not worthy of my hon. friend. There must of necessity be certain restrictions in this and other lands if we are to have any freedom at all. Apparently what my hon. friend regards as freedom is a thing which has robbed most people in this country of any freedom at all.


Mr. HAZEN:: I should like to place myself on record with respect to this legislation. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell) said that no one in parliament should vote for this bill lightly. I agree thoroughly with those remarks.
The purpose of the bill, we are informed, is to stabilize exchange and have our foreign exchange resources used to the best advantage. It will undoubtedly take some time for the business of the world to return to normal conditions after the upheaval of war, and a stabilized exchange would, I believe, assist in restoring the flow of goods and services between Canada and other countries.
I am not a financial expert, nor have I had any experience in international trade; consequently I am not in a position to make constructive suggestions which would further the purpose the government has in mind. But what strikes me about the bill is this, that it was promoted, planned and drafted by men [DOT]whose minds were so centred on currency and exchange that they overlooked the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country.
This bill, if it becomes law-and it will become law7 in its present form unless members on the government side take exception to some of its provisions-sets up a board of civil servants to buy and sell exchange at rates they will fix, to supervise and regulate the business transactions of our exporters and importers-	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend does not wish to be inaccurate. The board does not fix rates of exchange; the government does that.

Foreign Exchange Control


Douglas King Hazen: They are fixed by the government on the advice of the board-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily.


Douglas King Hazen: -to supervise the business transactions of our exporters and importers, and to control the assets and in consequence the movements of everyday people of this country. It is by this means that the government proposes to control the rate of exchange.
The bill is not limited in time to the transitory period from war to peace. It sets up a controlled economy in currency, securities and the export and import of goods for an indefinite period.
I favour a stabilized exchange during the transitory period from war to peace, if it can be brought about without interfering with the rights and liberties of the everyday people of this country: I believe it should be possible to enact legislation which would achieve that end. But if it is impossible, and that end can be achieved only by depriving the people of this country of the control of their property, and as a result, of their movements, as this bill does, then I am opposed to a stabilized exchange.
I hold the view that the people of Canada should have the right to do what they like with what belongs to them, provided that they do not interfere with the rights of other people. If this bill becomes law it will deprive them of many of the rights they possessed prior to the war.
Among other things the bill provides in section 25-and I am by no means giving a complete list-that no person in this country shall export any property from Canada without permission of the board.
In section 26 it provides that no person in Canada can import any property into Canada without permission of the board, but the board is not to withhold its permission to export or import when a fair value is being paid for the goods in a currency approved by the board.
By section 27 it provides that no person in Canada shall sell or assign his securities either inside or outside of Canada to any person who is not resident in Canada, unless he gets permission from the board.
It provides that no person in Canada can purchase any securities either outside or inside of Canada from a non-resident unless he gets permission from the board.
It provides in section 29 that any Canadian who owns securities outside of Canada must bring them into Canada when ordered by the board.
It provides in section 31 that no person residing in Canada can set up a trust fund, except by will, without obtaining permission from the board.
It provides by section 31 that no person in Canada shall assign or deliver to a non-resident any property situated in Canada or elsewhere, and no person residing in Canada can give any property to a non-resident without a permit from the board.
It provides by section 32 that no person in Canada may render any service to a person residing outside of Canada without authority, but must charge him and obtain payment within six months unless he obtains a permit from the board.
It provides by section 49 that the board can prohibit any person from exercising any control over his own property whenever it sees fit.
It provides by section 51 that the board can compel a person to transfer his property to a trust company, the costs of that company being a first charge on the property.
Let me give a few examples of the power the 'board will have under this bill if it becomes law in its present form. If you or I have a relative or friend in dire need living outside of Canada, in Ireland, Great Britain, the United States or some other country, whom we want to help and whom before the war we could have helped without asking permission of any one, under this bill we cannot help that person unless we get a permit from the board.
If you or I want to go on a trip to the United States or any other country, before leaving Canada we must present ourselves before a customs officer and answer all the questions that may be put by him relating to the property we are taking with us. If the customs officer does not believe us and thinks we have other property concealed on our person, he may search us and he may search our luggage. He has the power to arrest and seize and detain our property. Those provisions are contained in section 48.
If you or I want to leave Canada for an indefinite period and go to Australia, Scotland or any other country, either within or without the British commonwealth and empire, we cannot take with us what belongs to us unless we get a permit from the board. If we happen to be people of some means, that permit will probably be refused and we shall not be able to take with us what belongs to us.
If a farmer sells his farm with the intention of moving to the United States and going to work there, and the United States immigration authorities have given him permission to enter the country, the board will not pre-

Foreign Exchange Control

vent him from going but they will refuse in most cases to let him take with him what belongs to him if it amounts to over $5,000.
If, for what we consider good reasons, you or I have certain securities deposited outside of Canada the board can order us to bring them into Canada.
If you or I have a friend outside this country to whom we are under an obligation, we cannot render him a service or do any work for him without making him pay us for it within six months unless we obtain a permit from the board.
The long and the short of the matter is that this bill deprives the people of Canada of the right to control their own property and places that control in the hands of a board of civil servants.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Only as to property they want to take out of the country or bring in.


Douglas King Hazen: Not at all.
When the war broke out the majority of the people in this country did not object to a curtailment of their freedom and liberty under the powers conferred' upon the government by the War Measures Act and later by the National Resources Mobilization Act. The people believed that the government should have extraordinary powers while Canad'a was fighting for its existence. The war is over now, and these dictatorial powers should end. But instead of being brought to an end they will be perpetuated if we pass this bill.
The board to be set up under this bill is to take the place of the foreign exchange control board, which was established by order in council early in the war. It is being given practically the same dictatorial powers that that board possessed. According to section 11 the board will consist of six high-ranking civil servants. We are told that these men would not think of exercising the great powers conferred on them unreasonably or harshly, but would use the best judgment and tact in the exercise of the extraordinary powers that are being conferred on them. The only way in which we can form an opinion of how they will conduct themselves is to recall how they have conducted themselves in the past. I propose now to give a few instances- perhaps the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario never heard of these-of how the present board and its two hundred or so satellites have carried on their duties.
This board has seized the money of many innocent people who live near the international boundary line. A Canadian Pacific employee, who lives at McAdam Junction, New Brunswick, and who does most of his work in the state of Maine, addressed a letter

containing about $20 to a relative living in Maine who had assisted him when there was illness in his family. This money had been earned in the United States by a man who worked in the United States, but the letter happened to be mailed from a Canadian post office to a person living in Maine. The money was seized and it has never been returned.
The president of a large United States corporation who was in Vancouver on business was unable to pick up a coat that belonged to him because of the hurry to catch a train for home. He asked a friend whom he knew would be in his town in the course of a few days to bring the coat with him. The friend got the coat and put it in his valise, but he removed a bill-fold which he noticed was in the pocket. He was asked by the Canadian customs officer about the money he was taking to the United States and he gave them the particulars. The customs official asked him what was in the bill-fold, and he said he had not looked at it, that he was taking it to a United States friend who had left it in Vancouver. It was opened and was found to contain, if I remember correctly, $S0 in United States funds. The customs official confiscated it, but when the owner heard of what had happened he telegraphed to the state department in Washington and the money was returned. But the railway conductor in McAdam Junction has not got his money back yet.
A young boy living in New Brunswick near the Maine border earned $90 by working in the potato fields. This was the first money this boy had ever earned. The evening he arrived home with it one of his friends suggested that they drive across the line to the state of Maine which was only a few miles away. When he got to the border the $90 was seized.
An old man living near the border who was in the habit of passing from New Brunswick to Maine had about $90 seized. A member of parliament who approached the Minister of Finance on his behalf was informed by the minister that the regulations were not intended to be used in this way and that he would take up the matter with Mr. Graham Towers, the chairman of the board. A few days later the Minister of Finance informed the member that he had seen Mr. Towers, who said that they had taken money from so many people-this is the effect of his Words I am not quoting them exactly-that if they paid it back to one they would have to pay it back to all and it might lead to complications. The

Foreign Exchange Control
minister added that he did not care to interfere with the work of the board. That is the way this bureaucratic board carries on. Money was taken in this way from many innocent people and in some cases it has not been returned to them.
There was a case in New Brunswick to which I would direct the attention of the committee. One morning a woman set out for the bank with $300 for the purpose of paying a note which was due that day. When she got to town she found that the bank had not opened, so she proceeded to visit her daughter. Her daughter suggested that they drive across to a town in the United States which was only a few miles away. When they got to the border the $300 was seized by the Canadian officials. Later that day the woman reported the seizure to the manager of the Royal Bank of Canada where the note was due, and the manager said he would write to Ottawa. The woman never got her $300 back, but it was sent by the board to the branch of the Royal Bank of Canada to pay off the note. The fact that the chairman of the board was at one time in the employ of the Royal Bank of Canada is a mere coincidence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is a most
unfair suggestion to make, and I take strong exception to it.


Douglas King Hazen: It is the fact.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is bringing up a lot of isolated cases which he could well have brought up in the banking and commerce committee where we could have investigated them, but I am not quarrelling with that. The implied reflection on Mr. Towers I think is quite unjustified.


Douglas King Hazen: I am not bringing up a lot of isolated cases. I am bringing up only a few.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Cite all the cases you like. I only take exception to the reflection on Mr. Towers.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No one is perfect.


Douglas King Hazen: I was informed that it was not until a man named Tom Kennedy, who had had money seized in the province of New Brunswick by the board's officials, appealed from the magistrate's ruling to the county court and the judge of the court decided in his favour that the board started to pay back the moneys which it had seized. The facts in this case are not without interest. When the county court judge decided against the board and ordered the money paid back, the officials of the board felt outraged and at once gave notice of appeal to the supreme court. But 63260-2701
they found when they got into court that there was no appeal. To overcome this difficulty they had the government pass an order in council and then appealed the case again, but they did not get very far with the matter when it came before the chief justice of the province of New Brunswick. I think we should be thankful that there are judges in this country who are willing to protect the rights of the people against the actions of these bureaucrats.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend object to giving the names here so that we can look into the case?


Douglas King Hazen: I mentioned the name-Tom Kennedy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was the first name the hon. member mentioned. I do not insist, but I should be glad to have the names in these cases.


Douglas King Hazen: I am going to give one or two more instances. A man wanted to go to the United States to have an emergency operation. His brother, who was to accompany him, went to the bank for the purpose of obtaining United States funds. The bank hesitated, but on being informed of the emergency and knowing the applicant well, furnished him with $1,000. In due time the manager of the bank received a most discourteous letter from the board censuring him for advancing the money without obtaining permission. The fact that time might have been a matter of life and death did not enter into their calculations.
A farmer living in Maine, knowing that three of his neighbours across the line in New Brunswick were going to Saint John, asked them to get him some rope that he badly needed. They got the rope in Saint John and paid a small amount for it. They declared the rope to the United States custom officers and paid the duty. Later they were summoned by the board before a magistrate for taking this rope into the United States without obtaining a permit, and each of them was fined $300 and costs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What was wrong with the magistrate?


Douglas King Hazen: What is wrong with the board? What is wrong with this board will be wrong with the new board too. Most of the powers which the board now has will be retained if this bill becomes law, and we have no reason to suppose that the new board will exercise their powers any differently in the future from what they did in the past. If bureaucratic government is to continue, if we
Foreign Exchange Control

want to set up a new form of despotism, all we have to do is to pass this bill in its present form.
Under our constitution property and civil rights are a matter for the provinces, and I doubt very much that parliament has the power to pass an act of this kind, despite the opinion-and it was a vague opinion, if I may say so, not backed up by authority-of the justice department.
I want to point out that when a Canadian citizen goes to the board, hat in hand, for a permit to do this or to do that, the board in granting or refusing the permit is not governed in most instances by any law that parliament has passed, but acts as it sees fit.
The members of this house were elected by the people in their constituencies to make the laws, and we are responsible to the people who elected us for what we do here when'the next election comes round. But if we pass this bill and give powers to the board to make the laws under which it grants or refuses permission, if we place in the hands of the board powers that were given us under our democratic form of government-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we do not do that.


Douglas King Hazen: -we allow the board to make the laws of the country-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is nothing but an administrative body.


Douglas King Hazen: -and we are negligent in our duty and degrading our democratic system of government.
I would refer for a moment to the report made a year or two ago by the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association. The report says:
Laws should be enacted by parliament directly. The essence of democracy is that people govern themselves through their fully chosen representatives . . . The delegation of legislative power is not in the spirit of democratic institutions, the purpose of which is that the people's elected representatives alone shall make the laws . . .
Governments that try to place in the minds of the people the same respect for orders and regulations of delegated bodies as for public laws of parliament simply degrade the whole system to the level of dictatorship.
Parliaments, in introducing into democratic institutions the methods of dictatorship, render democracy odious to the people, who, in consequence, will be thrown into all sort of novel theories and political systems, hoping thereby to escape despotism, which they abhor.


William Irvine: What is my hon. friend quoting from?


Douglas King Hazen: I am quoting from the report of the committee of civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association.
. [Mr. Hazen.l


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about the
Marketing Act passed under the Bennett government, of which my hon. friend was a supporter? It was the most vicious piece of legislation ever passed.


Mr. STIRLING:: The best act ever passed.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not hear just what the minister said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Talk about parliamentary control! What about that Marketing Act?


Douglas King Hazen: Let me refer now to another feature of this bill. It gives the members of the board and its employees protection from our laws but it deprives the people of Canada of the fundamental principles of British justice. This bill sets up one system of justice for the members of the board and its employees, and another system of justice, or injustice for the people. It' introduces a system of jurisprudence that resembles in some respedts that which prevails in some European countries and is very different from our own.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which section is my hon. friend referring to there?


Douglas King Hazen: I am just coming to the section. While the board and its employees are given extraordinary powers over our property, and in consequence over our lives, no adequate safeguards are provided to prevent them from using those powers recklessly or without respect to the rights of the people. On the contrary, the bill contains provisions to protect the members of the board and its employees if they abuse their powers.
Let me give my reason for saying this. The bill provides in section 54 that no action, suit or proceedings shall be commenced against any member of the board, inspector, employee or representative of the board, or authorized dealer or agent of the board for any wrongdoing in the exercise of their duties until one month after notice in writing has been served on the alleged wrongdoer, stating the cause of action and giving other particulars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is an identical provision, as my hon. friend knows, in the Customs Act. It has been there for many years.


Douglas King Hazen: That does not make it any better. If this notice is given-and may I say it is quite contrary to our usual court proceedings, where the writ of summons is the notice-then the bill provides, section 54, subsection 2, that when the judge tries the case he shall award nominal damages only, without costs, if he certifies-and why and how the word "certifies" is used I do not know-

Foreign Exchange Control
that the defendant acted upon probable cause, or that the defendant acted in good faith in carrying out verbal instructions of the board or an inspector. If that does not open the door to a great deal of abuse-


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is nothing new in the section. It has been in the Customs Act, and it has been in the criminal code, protecting public servants, for years.


Douglas King Hazen: I refer now to section 44. A judge on an ex parte application can authorize a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and another person to enter and search if necessary by force any building for property which he has reasonable grounds for believing is liable to forfeiture, and seize property and carry it away if he finds it, and detain it from the lawful owner for ninety days, while the board makes up its mind if it will prosecute the owner. If the board decides not to prosecute, the property will be returned, I assume, but no compensation is provided for the owner.
If a search is made and no property is found, if the officer, inspector or person had reason to suspect that property liable to seizure would be found, he shall not be liable to any prosecution or action on account of any search or detention of property, although he may have used force, as he is given the right to do, and in consequence done damage, committed assault, or committed trespass.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The same provision is in the Customs Act.


Douglas King Hazen: That does not make it any better. That is a pretty poor answer, it seems to me. Laws of this kind, I have no hesitation in saying and I do say, put the subject at the mercy of the police and pave the way for wrongdoing and abuse of power by civil servants.
Now let us see how the bill proposes to treat the people who are arrested by the board or its officials, with or without warrant, or are charged with violating any of its provisions or the regulations that are made by the board when they are dealing with their own property.
The bill says that no prosecution shall be commenced without the consent of the attorney general, and if this were so it might ameliorate to some extent the harshness of the legislation, although the right to lay a charge should not be subject to the permission of the executive. But the bill does not so provide; for it goes on to state that a person can be arrested and put in gaol notwithstanding the consent of the attorney general is not obtained, and then it goes on to say that no further proceedings shall be taken.
Well, you go pretty far when you put a man in gaol, and it does not help him much to provide, after you get him there, that no further proceedings shall be taken without the consent of the attorney general. I regard those provisions as most objectionable. A man can be arrested and locked up, and I presume he will remain in gaol unless bail is provided, until the board sees fit to notify the attorney general, and until the attorney general, who may be on his holidays, sees fit to consider the matter. If he decides that the man should not be prosecuted, that there were not good and sufficient grounds for his arrest, the accused apparently has no relief for the wrong he has suffered and the bill does not provide how he is to get out of gaol. If on the other hand the attorney general decides that the prosecution should continue, not that it should be commenced, as the bill states, the bill provides that the judge is to presume that the accused did not have permission from the board to act as he did or had not been exempted by the board from doing as he did. The burden of proof is put on the accused to prove his innocence.
Now, sir, it is a fundamental principle of British justice that a person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, and that the crown must prove the guilt of the accused, and that the accused must have the benefit of every reasonable doubt. These principles have been justified by long experience throughout the years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the Marketing Act.


Douglas King Hazen: They were made not to protect the guilty but to protect innocent people. But this bill changes all that, for it provides that the burden of proof is on the accused to show that he had permission from the board to do what he did.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You started that in 1932 with your Marketing Act.


Douglas King Hazen: I was not here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, your party.


John Thomas Hackett: Remember the fate of those who perpetrated the bill of 1932.


Grote Stirling: And it was not 1932.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same fate will occur to them. Do not worry.


Douglas King Hazen: The persons who drafted this bill took every precaution to safeguard themselves and to deprive the people of this country of -the principles of British justice.
Foreign Exchange Control

This bill will set up a board of civil servants, who are not responsible to the electors of this country, with powers to tell the people what they can do and what they cannot do with their own property; it will protect the members of the board and their officials and employees from the laws of the land, while depriving the people of some of the fundamental rights of British justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same in the Marketing Act, passed by the Tory party.


Grote Stirling: Parrot.


Douglas King Hazen: I am opposed to principles of that kind. We have been told that the desire for money is the root of all evil. Evil has, it seems to me, developed another root, and that is the desire of the government to control exchange by setting up a board of this kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Consistency, thou art a jewel."


Douglas King Hazen: If this bill becomes law it will be a great stride towards centralization, socialization and Stalinization in this country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, again we seem to be discussing the principle of the bill in committee. The principle has already been approved. I am not going to reply to my hon. friend on the points which he has raised particularly about this bill, including the Stalinization of Canada. I think that is utter ignorance, it is one of those nice phrases which reads well in the newspapers but does not mean very much if you analyse it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is a matter of opinion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If you are going to control exchange you must provide the necessary control measures, and that is all we are attempting to do with this bill. No one regrets any more than I do the necessity of having to control foreign exchange. But I am profoundly convinced that it is necessary, and I do not believe my hon. friend's party will take the stand that exchange control is no longer necessary, although some individual members would appear desirous of giving that impression.
As to the various individual cases which my hon. friend has cited, he has given almost no names, and of course it is not possible for me to check them. If he will be good enough to give me names I will see that they are looked into. I will not suggest for a moment that in the administration of this difficult control measure during six years of war there were not some mistakes and some injustices,

but my personal experience was that the board functioned very efficiently. Not only did it function efficiently, but it functioned to the general satisfaction of the business community and, as well, of Canadians as a whole.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario paid a well deserved tribute to the manner in which the board was administered during the war. The member for St. John-Albert attacks the methods followed by the board. That is his privilege, but I suggest that it would be much easier for me and for the board to investigate special cases if he would give us names, or if he had given them to us when the bill was being considered in the banking and commerce committee. After all, he has given an ex parte statement, and my experience as a lawyer has been that there are always two sides to a case. I venture to say that if the cases he has cited are looked into, it will be found that in the great majority of them there was a good reason for the action which the board took.
I do not know that there is anything else I can add. We have been discussing the details of the bill on the first section, and possibly it is desirable that we should have a general discussion now, because the individual clauses were considered in detail by the banking and commerce committee and every gentleman opposite who has spoken so far was a member of the committee, so that all are familiar with the points which were brought up there. Apart from that, I have no particular comments to offer on the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert.


Mr. HANSELL:: I do not wish to discuss the principle of the bill, but I should like to ask one or two questions, and this is the only place in which I can put them. I believe we are pretty well prepared in this corner of the house to adopt the measure. It was gone over thoroughly in the banking and commerce committee, on which this group was represented by the hon. member for Peace River, the leader of this party (Mr. Low), the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and the member for Acadia (Mr. Queleh). I believe they put on the record fairly well the stand of this group, and they are men in whom I have great confidence in matters of this kind. Moreover, the member for Acadia spent about forty minutes on the second reading of the bill, making some observations that were satisfactory to the group.
The questions I wish to ask arise out of a communication I received not long ago, and the minister is of course well aware of

Foreign Exchange Control
the situation which existed and which called forth this letter. When the exchange rate was changed, on July 5, I believe it was, quite a few individuals suffered great loss in money they received from other countries immediately following the change, and the person to whom I have reference particularly suffered in connection with a money transfer in sterling from Scotland,	The * transfer
took place three days after the exchange rate was changed, and this gentleman sustained a loss of nearly $800. I should like to know' whether the government is considering, if it is at all possible under the circumstances, any measure of relief or compensation for individuals who suffered a loss. That is the first question.
The second question is this, and it is what gives rise to my correspondent writing in the way in which he does. He reminds me that about July 25, the newpapers ran an article in which it was indicated that the government would compensate the gold mining industry for losses in this connection, and he writes to ask whether the government is considering a similar measure to compensate individuals who lost money at that time in consequence of such transactions as I have indicated. I wonder if the minister could answer that question. That is all I have to say on the bill, and I ask that question because there are many people who found themselves in a position similar to that of my correspondent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is right
w'hen he says that a number of people found themselves in a position similar to that of his correspondent, who received a remittance from the old country two or three days after the exchange rate had been changed. I gathered	that	the loss was about $800.The difference in the exchange rate for the pound sterling was forty cents, so that the remittance must have been a substantial one. I can only say that is one of the losses incident	to	any	exchange rate and I	fearit is not one for which the government can properly give compensation. It would have to go into every case in which payment had been made after a given date on which the exchange rate was altered. It is one of those cases in which one can only say it is a	rub of	the green. Payment	wasreceived	in	the	foreign currency after	the
exchange rate had been changed.
On the second point, the newspaper report to which my hon. friend referred related to possible assistance to the gold mining industry as a result of the exchange rate being changed. The assistance, if I may so term it, took the
form of certain arrangements for the future. That is to say, no assistance was given to gold mines as such with respect to the stocks of bullion they had on hand at the time the exchange rate was changed, or with respect to any other inventory they might have which would be affected. But realizing that the difference in the price of gold would affect the mines which were mining lower-grade ore, the government did, as I announced a week ago, provide for two years' special depletion allowance and fixed a lower minting charge at the Canadian mint. There were certain other provisions, but there was no compensation to gold mines or anybody else for stocks of gold or United States exchange on hand at the time the change become effective.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: 
Mr. HATFIELD:: Will the minister say whether "B" forms are now required for the export of goods from this country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Then I should like to know how much it is going to cost the government to protect the 963 forward contracts that were in effect on July 5.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It may take a moment to get that information, so we might have to go on with another section for the moment. I can probably give it later.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to know if all the exporters had a right to forward con-
Foreign Exchange Control

tracts. I understand that only a few privileged exporters in Canada could take out a forward contract.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that every exporter who had a firm contract to receive payment within a specified time could obtain the protection.


Heber Harold Hatfield: For how long?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the ordinary period was ninety days but that it went up to periods as long as six months.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It went to a period of a year. Some firms had the privilege of taking out forward contracts for a year's time. Other firms had the privilege of taking out contracts for only three months. Why the difference?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told by the officials before me that they do not believe that is the case, 'but I shall look into my hon. friend's statement.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I was so informed by the board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to the figure for which my hon. friend asked, on July 6 the net forward position was $132,000,000.


Heber Harold Hatfield: And ten per cent of that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is good at mathematics, and I suppose he can make the calculation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I shall endeavour to pay heed to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the principle of this bill was adopted by this house some time ago. May I say, however, that in regard to many of these technical measures it is impossible to know the ramifications and the full import of a resolution until one sees the bill itself. I recall that on more than one occasion, if not in this precise instance, a discussion of the principle itself was permitted after the standing committee had reported back to the house. Certainly in a bill such as the one we are now considering there are very many technical matters which could not be known in advance. So if in a sense what I say is a report on the findings of the committee, I hope you will pardon me.
In the committee we found that if we were to have foreign exchange control we must have all or nothing. Apparently there was no halfway measure. At the same time, however, we find that those who operate the foreign exchange control board have great discretion, and that the satisfactory or otherwise operation of this board depends a great deal if not entirely upon how those who are in authority -and I am speaking not of those in political 
authority but of those in administrative authority-exercise their discretion from time to time.
One or two matters were brought up this morning by various speakers, to which I should like to refer. First the hon. member for Acadia wondered how it was that the progressive Conservative party could support the Bretton Woods agreement and at the same time dislike the present bill to set up a permanent foreign exchange control board. May I say to the hon. member that many of us in this party hope that Bretton Woods and the international monetary fund which will be established under that agreement will prevent some of the disruptions of foreign exchange, and thereby of foreign trade, which took place in pre-war years, and which were among the indirect causes of war itself. We hope the nations subscribing to the Bretton Woods agreement will include most of the trading nations of the wprld, and we hope those nations will not again engage in currency warfare. A nation which wanted to increase its exports reduced its currency in terms of the currency of other nations, and in this way the goods of the exporting country were made cheaper. In return they got money, usually hard money from the United States or some other country where they wanted to buy in future. But this process of lowering the value of exchange led to competition and to great difficulties, and it is something we hope Bretton Woods will obviate in the future.


Victor Quelch: Does the hon. member see any sign of trade wars lessening soon as a result of the Bretton Woods agreement?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am hopeful, as I think most of the world is, that the signatories to Bretton Woods will include most if not all the trading nations, and that those signatories will live up to the agreement which they undertook when they signed the Bretton Woods pact. If they do, there will be strict limitations on the extent of any change they may make in the value of their currency. They may not alter their currency by more than ten per cent without the approval of the governing body; up to ten per cent it may be done without approval, though they must first consult the international board. It is hoped that by this means currency wars will be avoided in future.
The hon. member for Acadia also said that if we did not have an exchange control board, exchange rates would be at the mercy of and subject to all the hazards of speculators. May I say to the hon. member that in the normal working of exchange rates the exchange values of different currencies wers the reflection of

Foreign Exchange Control
economic events in different countries. They were the result of the work, labour and trading of the ordinary man who did business with other countries. They were not the result of speculators or others who would say, " We want the rate to be so and so, so that we can make a profit." They came about substantially by the working of natural economic forces. What the present arrangement of having a control board does is to make of every Canadian a speculator, willy-nilly. The ordinary individual has no choice in the matter at all. As a citizen and taxpayer he is subject to the risks of exchange through the foreign exchange control board. And if one does not fully realize what the situation is, when we placed the Canadian dollar on a parity with the United States dollar the loss, while not yet revealed to us, is estimated-a very good guide being given to us by those who are in control -at approximately S150 million. So that, spread over 11 million or 12 million people it is easy to see that in a sense we are all made speculators and made to bear a loss which we would not otherwise have to bear.
Again, the hon. member said that Bretton Woods implies exchange control. Even the Minister of Finance when he introduced the resolution on which this bill is based said there were three policies which would be followed, and one of them was exchange stabilization, or an exchange equalization fund. I believe that would work with greater satisfaction to Canada and to our people than would the present hidebound, iron-clad system of exchange control over even the most petty transactions with the United States or with other countries.
While as a result of the exigencies of the war most other countries do have foreign exchange control to-day, we have in the United States the great example of a strong economic power, similar in many respects to our own, only larger, and to some extent more self-sufficient. That country does not have exchange control, nor, so far as one can see, is there any likelihood of its having it. I should also think that as soon as possible the United Kingdom will do away with exchange control, because so long as she has these controls, particularly on capital account, she can never again become the financial centre of the world. That position, occupied with such ability by Great Britain for so many years, brought to her a source of income which she cannot 'well do without, and gave her a position in world trade which was the envy of every other country.
May I point out that already Canada has become the third or fourth largest trading nation in the world, and the amount of foreign exchange bills resulting from that trading is
substantial. But these bills are now all cleared through New York, and a commission is paid to those engaged in financial business in that centre. If we were able to do without control in this country there is the possibility that just as other centres in Europe such as Paris, Brussels and Berlin did at a time when London was the paramount financial centre, so we might on this continent become a financial centre of some importance, and thereby add to our national income. But that cannot be attained so long as we have the rigid controls provided by this bill.
This morning the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) said that exchange controls will always be with us. Let us hope that we can get away from controls. Later I shall cite what the Minister of Finance said when he introduced the resolution. The hon. member for Cariboo implied that exchange rates had in the past been made by certain wealthy individuals in other countries. But may I tell him, as I have suggested to the hon. member for Acadia, that exchange rates were always made by the work and trade of all the people in a country. It is the result of all the transactions connected with the buying and selling of goods between our country and other countries that determines the exchange rates existing between those countries. That again is influenced by the cost of producing goods in one country as against producing them in another.
Exchange controls perpetuate or endeavour to perpetuate artificiality. We had an example of that on July 5 when suddenly, and without any warning to our people, the Canadian dollar became worth ten per cent more in terms of United States and sterling currency. That situation would not have come about with such abruptness if the ordinary working of the economic forces which are continuously at play were not under the poultice and the cover of the foreign exchange control board, and we should not have had the dire results in some of our industries which followed as a consequence of that ten per cent change overnight in our exchange rate.
Let me say a word or two about what I believe is the really important matter behind this bill. The dominion government has taken unto itself the management of our whole economy. The federal power ramifies through the life of every business man and every worker in the community, not only by way of taxation, but through price and wage controls. The dominion government in its offers to the provinces has undertaken to look after all unemployment in the event of bad times, and it will guarantee a fairly stable economy pro-
Foreign Exchange Control

videdi that it is allowed to run the whole show. It will give to the provinces a bag of gold so that they can run their own shows in their own back yards. But if the dominion is to assume the responsibility for a managed economy, then there must be no one else's hand on the steering wheel. They must run all business. They must run the whole economy, to the point where it means that any other political power or any other political subdivision in Canada must become a nonentity.
We have seen what happened after five years, during which time the provinces leased their taxing powers in certain fields to the dominion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What has this to do with the foreign exchange control board?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It has a great deal to do with it, because, as I shall point out in a moment, the foreign exchange control board is an arm of this creature which is gradually enclosing the whole Canadian economy and endeavouring to make of this country what we were never supposed to be, a unitary state, when we are in fact a federal state. It is the desire, I believe, to continue as a federal state, not only in my own province of Ontario but I am sure also in the province of Quebec. I believe, too, that most other provinces desire that control over their own welfare be in their own hands; they do not want it to be transferred to the federal power in Ottawa which under our constitution never had that right, and I hope never will have it under present conditions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I still ask what that has to do with the bill we are discussing.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Now that the minister has given me that much help, I can go on to explain exactly where we are.


William Ross Macdonald: May I again point out to the committee that the principle of this bill was approved on second reading.


Gordon Graydon: Was there any debate or. it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Twelve pages.


Gordon Graydon: That was on the resolution.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, on the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: When the bill was before the house for second reading, at which time the principle of the bill was considered, it was discussed by different members of the house, and Hansard records from ten to twelve pages of debate. I am not referring to the resolution; I am referring to the second reading. There is no doubt that when the

bill was before the house for consideration on second reading there was a discussion which is recorded in Hansard. It is not the purpose of the committee of the whole to consider the principle of a bill which has already been approved. The committee is set up to consider a bill clause by clause.
I do not think the purpose of this committee is being carried out when hon. members discuss the principle of the bill. I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member for Rosedale in his opening remarks because he was replying to certain things that had been said, and I thought it was only fair that he should have that opportunity. I suggest to him and to all members of the committee that the principle of the bill should not be further discussed, but that it should be taken up clause by clause.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On the point of order, I think in theory the chairman is correct, but my understanding is that in discussing section 1 of a bill there is just as much latitude allowed as there is on the second reading when the principle is being discussed. That has always been the practice. I think the hon. member for Rosedale is talking nonsense, but I think he should have the right to do it.


William Ross Macdonald: May I say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is my recollection that the principle of a bill is discussed on the first section in committee when the bill has not been discussed in the house on second reading. Hon. members will recall that frequently a bill receives second reading without discussion, in which case discussion is allowed on the principle when the first clause of the bill is before the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only with the consent of the committee.


William Ross Macdonald: With the consent of the committee. That is customary. I do not think there is general consent at this time to renew the debate on the principle of the bill. Again I would ask all hon. members not to discuss the principle of the bill at this time, but rather to discuss the clauses as they are called in committee. The clause which I have called is No. 1.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I believe I was paying pretty close deference to your original suggestion. This bill is of a technical nature and I do not think it was before us on the second reading. If, as you say, only twelve pages of Hansard were taken up on a matter of such great importance, parliament must have been derelict in its duty-unless there was a

Foreign Exchange Control
clear understanding that the principle or certain matters pertaining to the principle could be discussed at a subsequent time. Certainly the remarks that were made when the resolution upon which the bill is founded was discussed did not give very much indication of the severity and the true nature of the controls which were envisaged. However, if I may continue, I think what I want to say can be summed up in one sentence, namely, that the foreign exchange control bill is a very powerful arm of a managed economy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is the hon. member opposed to this bill? Is the hon. member opposed to foreign exchange control? Let us get it straight, yes or no. This is a typical example of Conservative inconsistency-approve the principle and then criticize essential details.


Gordon Graydon: That is just trash.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is exactly what he is giving out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to find out whether the Conservative party is opposed to the foreign exchange control bill.


Gordon Graydon: Surely we are not going to have a short-grained government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the hon. member for Peel says "trash" he is speaking his own mind.


Gordon Graydon: If that is your strongest answer I am going to accept it. Keep your temper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You just keep quiet.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Rosedale has the floor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If there is going to be a dog fight, it will be a dog fight.


Gordon Graydon: No one knows more about that than you.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We did suggest in the committee certain matters which the minister did not see fit to accept. Had they been accepted we might have been more enthusiastic about the acceptance of this bill. What we did not find in the bill when we came to examine it in committee were certain things which the Minister of Finance led us to believe, when he introduced the resolution, we might expect to find. Let me quote what he said, and I refer hon. members to page 2547 of Hansard:
We hope that it

Referring to the immediate future.

will be one which does not call for restrictive controls and we shall do everything in our power to bring this about.
I refer to those remarks in view of the absence of any time limit to this bill, and the refusal of the Acting Minister of Finance to adopt our suggestion that a time limit of a year, or even a slightly longer period, be put on this bill. Let me refer to what the Minister of Finance said on June 17, as reported on page 2548 of Hansard:
When the world returns to a more normal basis we shall have a fresh look at the question.
Surely in view of those two statements one might have expected to find a time limit here. But we did not. We hope that hon. members of this house who value freedom, who believe that this matter is one which may be useful to tide over an emergency, let us say until Bretton Woods comes into effect, will consider this matter. I made my statement when the resolution was introduced in this house. I was not against the exchange controls until the time arrived when we could have a look at them to find out what other nations are going to come in under the agreements. Surely within a year or two years this bill should automatically come before parliament again to see whether or not parliament thinks the restrictions on the normal activities of our people should be continued. I cannot see any reason why the government should not be agreeable to that suggestion.
Let us consider the position of our country in regard to foreign exchange in 1939, and whether it would have been better if controls had existed during the thirties. I asked in the committee how much better off Canada would have been in 1939, when of necessity we thought it was the correct thing to impose controls in order to strengthen our sinews of war, if we had had these controls foisted upon us during the period of the thirties. There was no satisfactory answer to that. We got through the war period, we handled our exchange, we had our controls when necessary and we were all agreeable to that. If we are going to adopt the control philosophy which is sponsored by this government we might as well have had those controls all during the twenties and the thirties. But to what purpose? They would have served no useful purpose.


William Irvine: How do you know?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What have we to fear in the future that we need these controls now? Reference is made to an exposed economy, but of course we as a trading nation are always exposed to other nations. If we buy too much, then we run short of United States dollars; if we sell too much and do not buy enough, then we have a surplus and some other country is embarrassed. Each country
Foreign Exchange Control

must look after its own economy; it must look after these matters, and not by exchange controls.
Are we likely to become an aggressor nation so that we shall need controls? The United States has not always been a friendly economic neighbour, but of necessity she has always been a friendly political neighbour. Controls during the last war did not save us. We ran short of United States exchange. But we had the Hyde Parle agreement. There is not much doubt that if we are in a crisis at some time in the future the United States will also be behind us or we behind them because we have the same philosophy of life. Neither country is an aggressor nation, and just as they came to our financial aid in 1942 they will come to our aid again. In the meantime we could get rid of these controls and we could then trade freely, not only on current account but on capital account, with our cousins ih'the United States.
It was not pointed out in the committee by the witness for the government to what extent our external currency position is more hazardous now than it was in 1939. The Minister of Finance at page 2543 of Hansard reported that Canada's holdings of gold expressed in United States dollars amounted as of September 15, 1939, to 8393,000,000 and on December 31, 1945, they amounted to $1,508,000,000-holdings of gold and United States dollars at the end of the war about four times as large as we had at the beginning. Yet -we did not have controls then, and we got along all right without them. But now we must have controls. Why? Because we had controls during the war. Those who have this tremendous economic power just cannot understand why they should ever give it up. If they knew the effects which these controls have had in restricting private business in this country and preventing its expansion, they might even now reconsider. That was our position vis-a-vis the United States.
The Minister of Finance reported on page 2545 of Hansard that Canada's balance of indebtedness vis-a-vis the United Kingdom improved by approximately $1,500,000,000 in the course of the war. So Canada emerges from the war greatly strengthened in United States dollars and greatly strengthened in our sterling position, yet we must have controls! The reason has never been adequately set forth. The Minister of Finance in introducing the resolution by no means showed substantial and satisfactory reasons why these controls should be foisted upon us for an indefinite period.
[Mr. Jackman.J
May I ask what have we to fear? Even if we have reason to fear, what can the foreign exchange control board do about it?-even with all these ironclad regulations which	prevent	a	Canadian, for	instance,from going to the United States for a weekend without filling in forms and going to the bank and wasting time. You cannot do business without filling out innumerable forms, and generally you cannot carry on as a normal individual because of all these regulations. The board seems to think that business men have no more	to	do than	to sit	in theiroffices	and fill	out forms.	What	can theboard	do even	if	we have	reason	to fear?
The star witness for the government, under a government instruction, refused to tell the committee what the loss to the Canadian taxpayer, to my constituents, was by reason of the fact that on July 5 Canada's dollar was no longer at a discount with the United States dollar but by the action of the government, on the advice of the foreign exchange control board had once again assumed parity with the United States dollar. That loss was never indicated to us, and the reason given was that it would give away the position of the board-give it away to speculators, they said, or to people with so-called "hot" money, who might do something to disrupt the Canadian economy. If the board cannot prevent disruption of Canada's economy through outside influences just because somebody knows the position of the board, how much gold and United States dollars and currency it has, what good are all these regulations? Surely business men can guess pretty well what the board is doing. They cannot help but know pretty well, and if that knowledge is going to make it possible for outside forces to disrupt our exchange position, what on earth is this board going to do anyway, with its cost and its nuisance to the Canadian people? Why is the board, on instruction from the government, refusing to tell the people of Canada how many millions, $150,000,000 or $250,000,000, of the taxpayers' money was lost when the exchange rate was changed by the action of the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are you against that?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am very glad that
the minister asked me if I guessed that. The star witness for the government, Mr. Ras-minsky, gave us the position as of December 31, 1945, and at a subsequent meeting he pretty well indicated-I do not want to be too definite

that we would not be far off the beam if we took that figure.

Foreign Exchange Control


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are you opposed to
parity of the dollar?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am opposed to the
way in which your government reached parity of the dollar. I would rather have a situation where you can make commitments, in the mining industry, for example, whose experience is fairly fresh in the minds of hon. members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now we will get it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You asked for it. They had contracted for labour and for supplies on the basis that they were going to get $38.50 per ounce for gold. Then the government at Ottawa changed the price of gold to $35. The effect of that was that many mines would go out of production, especially those producing gold at a high cost, and that is the situation of most of the gold mines in northern Quebec; their marginal profit was lost when the 10 per cent disappeared. Many of them will have to close down, many workmen will be thrown out of employment, and tradesmen will be worried about payment of their supplies.
What I am saying to the minister is this, that the ten per cent change was merely the reflection of economic forces working underneath, and working so hard in this case that finally even the Liberal government boiled over and was forced into action. There is no doubt in my mind that the Canadian dollar was becoming more and more valuable, or that the United States dollar was becoming less and less valuable in terms of purchasing power, and parity would have been reached much sooner under a free exchange market. May I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that there are business men and economists who are trained to foretell economic events but they cannot tell what is going on in the mind of the Minister of Finance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the hon. member against enriching the Canadian dollar as a result of the country's enrichment?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I did not understand my hon. friend's question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You would not,
naturally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is quite possible that the Canadian dollar may go to a premium over the United States dollar. It depends upon how we run our economy and how the United States run theirs. What I want is a natural working of these economic laws. Even under a stabilization fund we might have definite rates fixed by the governing body,
but we hope that the rate will not jump ten per cent at a time but vary only one or two per cent.
Just along that line the Minister of Finance had something to say when he introduced the resolution. He said, as reported on page 2541 speaking of the action of the foreign exchange control board during the years:
I believe that the house will agree that the complete stability of exchange rates which has been maintained since September, 1939, has been of great advantage to the Canadian economy.
I will not disagree with him, but to put a ten per cent jump all at once is something which no industry can very well stand. The only reason that the newsprint industry, one of our largest manufacturing industries, was able to stand it, was that there being a seller's market in the United States, they were able to increase their prices in terms of United States currency another ten per cent and in that way equate themselves. The gold industry could) not do that. What use are these controls if they cannot control? Why is the board unwilling to let us know the extent of the loss suffered by the country on July 5?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That will be disclosed in the next annual report.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That will be a long time.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The thought
comes to me, of what use is the chairman of the committee if he cannot control the proceedings in the committee? I think all members in the committee agree that the bill was discussed on second reading and that the principle was approved. It is not in order to discuss the principle when the bill gets in committee of the whole. So far the remarks of most hon. members in the committee have been directed to the principle of the bill.


Grote Stirling: Oh, no.


William Ross Macdonald: To my mind that is the wrong procedure. The committee is set up for a purpose, and the purpose is not the same as the purpose of consideration of a matter in the house. When the bill is before the house the principle only is discussed; the sections of the bill are not discussed. In committee the reverse holds; the sections are discussed and not the principle. Of course I am in the hands of the committee. If the committee wants to continue the discussion of the principle, I will not interfere with the speakers, but otherwise I feel it my duty to call an hon. member to order when he is discussing the principle of the bill and not the sections.


John Thomas Hackett: On the point of order, I did not recall that the principle of the bill had
Foreign Exchange Control

been accepted; so since you, Mr. Chairman, made that statement I took the trouble of turning up the debate. NaturaJlly I have read it over hastily, but I cannot on the reading agree with your statement of fact.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I refer my hon. friend to page 2539 of Hansard? He will find the statement there.


John Thomas Hackett: I am looking now at page 3039.
* Mr. ABBOTT: Yes, but refer to what the Minister of Finance said at page 2539. The leader of the opposition raised this question as to the discussion of the principle of the bill on second reading, and the minister replied. Would my hon. friend care to look at it? Or, I will read it; it is short.


John Thomas Hackett: We will come now to the second reading of this bill and refer to Hansard at page 3039. The Acting Minister of Finance there moved second reading, whereupon the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said:
I had understood that there was to be a .notion to refer the bill to the banking and commerce committee. Did I misunderstand?
Then the acting minister answered, and he said that he did not wish to curtail the debate:
As the minister indicated, there is no desire to curtail debate on the second reading, although in the interest of expediting the business of the house I perhaps might express the hope that the greater part of the discussion and questions with respect to this rather technical bill might well take place before the banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And they did.


John Thomas Hackett: Whereupon the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario pointed out in a couple of sentences two fundamental objections to the bill, and said no more. Now, unless, Mr. Chairman, I have overlooked something in the expressed opinion of the official opposition, there was no concurrence in the principle of the bill. I know, sir, that your duties are manifold and are not easy of discharge. The doctrine of infallibility does not apply either to you or to me, and it may be that I have overlooked something, but I do think that this is a matter of the utmost importance, and I know that my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance would not wish to curtail discussion, which after all is beneficial in a matter so far-reaching as this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not attempted to curtail discussion, Mr. Chairman; but as the committee knows, the general rule followed is that the principle of a bill is approved when it is given second reading. This question was raised on the resolution preceding the intro-
duction of the bill, Hansard, page 2539. The leader of the opposition asked this question:
Mr. Bracken:	I understood that the minister
was willing to have this bill go before a committee of the house. Is he willing that it should go before the committee before the second reading?
The Minister of Finance replied:
I do not think that course should be taken on a bill such as this. Rarely a small or unimportant bill is referred to a committee without first approving the principle, but I think the principle of a bill as important as this should be approved before it goes to the banking and commerce committee. When it comes back from that committee there will be opportunity to amend it in the committee of the whole and, on the third reading, to defeat it, or move the six months' hoist, if anyone desires to make such a motion. After the second reading I am suggesting that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee, as was done with the Bank Act.
It is true that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario did not make extended remarks. The hon. member for Acadia made rather more extended remarks, and the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke on it. I submit there can be no doubt that the principle of this bill was approved when it was given first reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Also on this point, what the minister says is perfectly true; nevertheless on July 2, I submit, the atmosphere of that discussion was indicated in the words of his which were read before:
. . . there is no desire to curtail debate on the second reading, although in the interest of expediting the business of the house I might perhaps express the hope that the greater part of the discussion and questions with respect to this rather technical bill might well take place before the banking and commerce committee.
I submit it is' a fair interpretation that the whole tenor or implication of that discussion was that we were to reserve our remarks and not go into detail until we had-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Precisely, and we discussed it, Mr. Chairman. Everything without exception which has been said in this committee to-day is in effect a repetition of what took place before the banking and commerce committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Not everything.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh yes, all of it. I followed
these proceedings pretty closely.


John Thomas Hackett: I draw to the attention
of the minister the fact that on the same page, 2539, a line or two below where he stopped reading, we find the following statement by the leader of the opposition:

Foreign Exchange Control
Mr. Bracken:	So far as the official opposition are concerned we shall be glad to facilitate passage of the measure up to the second reading, on the understanding that there will be an opportunity for study of the bill before the debate on the second reading begins.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Carry on, now. Then comes a statement by the minister.


John Thomas Hackett: The Minister of Finance said:
I shall not move the second reading for a few days, because there ought to be an opportunity for hon. gentlemen to study the bill. But I think it is important to get through all these early stages, and I cannot do that without making an extensive speech on the resolution.
Mr. Bracken:	That is satisfactory.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And second reading was
not moved until July 2.


John Thomas Hackett: Nowhere do we find-and I am willing to carry the search farther- anything that savours of acquiescence by the official opposition in the principle of the bill. We have a great deal to do here and we cannot be in entire agreement. Indeed, that is the reason for the existence of this body, that we may thresh out our disagreements. Surely, therefore, the assertion should not be made that we have agreed when there is nothing to warrant such an assertion. To saj' that the official opposition has acquiesced in a bill which imposes control without a time limit on the life and destiny of the whole people, is to make an assertion for which, I submit, there is no warrant. I would ask you therefore, Mr. Chairman, after having taken cognizance of the record, to permit the debate to go on as if the principle of the bill were under discussion.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On page 2539 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is reported as follows:
My suggestion would be that the questions-
I pause there for a moment, because this is a highly complicated and most technical bill; and while it affects the generality of our people, even our humblest constituents, it affects to a greater extent those engaged in commerce and those having to do with foreign exchange. Without a thorough understanding of the bill and all that it entails, it would have been virtually impossible to understand what the principle behind it was, and that understanding can be gained only by means of questioning. I come back, therefore, to the statement made by the Minister of Finance on the page to which I have just referred:
My suggestion would be that the questions be asked in the banking and commerce committee. That is by far the best place to ask questions. This is a most inappropriate stage at which to
answer, if not to ask, questions on a measure of this kind, because the bill itself is not before the house. It is a 74-section bill. There can be any amount of debate on the second reading

although I hope there will not be any-and every opportunity to ask questions when the bill is taken up section by section in the banking and commerce committee.
I am not suggesting that the Acting Minister of Finance is not endeavouring to interpret this in the proper spirit, but the spirit of the section and the declaration by the Minister of Finance were that we should have an opportunity to ask these questions in the most appropriate place, namely, in the committee. Moreover, I am suggesting that, without an understanding of what is behind the bill, it was hard to appreciate what was involved in the principle. Therefore I feel that we are not suggesting any undue stretching of the rules in asking you, Mr. Chairman, to allow us to continue our discussion of the principle as applied to the sections. As you recall, sir, the section with which I was dealing had to do with the time during which the bill, if adopted, would be applicable.


William Irvine: With respect to this point of order, I cannot see why my hon. friend, who desires to object to certain restrictive provisions in the bill, cannot raise those objections on the particular clause in which the restriction is to be enacted. I think we should confine our discussion to each section as we come to it. That would make for progress. I cannot see why the hon. gentleman would not have the fullest opportunity to do all his objecting without rehashing the general principle of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: I thank all hon. members for the assistance they have given me in trying to come to a conclusion on the rule to be interpreted. There is general accord so far as the meaning of the rule is concerned, and that is that the principle of the bill should not be discussed at this time, and could be discussed at this stage only under special circumstances and with the unanimous consent of the committee. Hon. members have referred to what took place in the resolution stage. I would point out that the Minister of Finance suggested that there should not be a great deal of discussion at that time since hon. members had not the bill before them. Several weeks intervened before the bill was presented to the house for second reading, during which time all hon. members had every opportunity to examine the bill. The references that have been made to the committee are in all instances references to the committee on banking and commerce. The minister's suggestion was not that the questions be asked in committee
Foreign Exchange Control

of the whole. His suggestion was, if hon. members will read his remarks, that the questions be asked when the bill was before the banking and commerce committee.


John Thomas Hackett: That is not denied.


William Ross Macdonald: That, 1 presume, has been done. The bill was before the house in the resolution stage when there was some discussion, and again it was before the house on second reading when, without doubt, the principle was adopted.


John Thomas Hackett: By whom?


William Ross Macdonald: By vote of the house. That is the record and I can only go by the record. The bill was then referred to the banking and commerce committee where, I take it, questions were asked, and probably the principle was again discussed. It was then reported to the committee of the whole. It is suggested that I interpret the rule differently. I am powrerless to do so. As I have said, however, I am in the hands of the * committee and, unless I am instructed otherwise, it is my duty to insist that at this stage the principle be not discussed but that the bill be discussed clause by clause. That is my ruling.


John Thomas Hackett: I would point out that the minister has stated on several occasions that the principle of the bill has been accepted by the official opposition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say that. I said it had been accepted by the house, and the official opposition did not vote against it.


John Thomas Hackett: 1 call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the minister has said it was accepted by the official opposition, and I further point out to the Chair that that is an inaccuracy. We thought we had an undertaking -which would enable us to discuss the principle at this time but, apparently, according to the ruling of the Chair, I am in error in that regard.


William Ross Macdonald: I hope I did not say that the bill in principle had been accepted by the opposition. If I did I made a mistake. I meant to say, and I believe I did say, that according to the record the principle had been adopted by the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, principle or no principle, you should pay no attention to the shadow-boxing of the Progressive Conservative party.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
[The Chairman.]
On section 5-Exchange fund account continued.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This section has been
amended on the recommendation of the banking and commerce committee. The amendment is incorporated in subsection 4 of section 5, and it will be observed that subsection 4 requires the minister to report to parliament within thirty days after the 31st day of March the amounts authorized by the governor in council under paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of this section. Paragraph (c) deals with the transactions of the board in the currencies of countries other than the United States and apart from gold. Gold is covered under paragraph (a), and United States currency under paragraph (b). I have been looking through the records of the banking and commerce committee and I cannot find the reason why paragraph (c) was the only one which was affected by the amendment. It seems to me there would be equal reason for paragraphs (a) and (b) to be affected by the amendment, requiring the minister to table the information in the house or to have it published in the Canada Gazette. I would ask if the minister would accept an amendment inserting paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in place of (c) only.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee I should like to revert to section 4, which passed very quickly.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. Could we first dispose of section 5?


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well; I shall speak on section 5 in relation to section 4. This is supposed to be under the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance is supposed to be the big boss of the foreign exchange control board. What I have contended in the house, what I have submitted every time I have mentioned these -matters, is that the minister shall be responsible to the house; and I cannot understand how hon. members could have let section 4 pass like that without saying a word. I have to come back from the east to remind the house of these elementary matters in constitutional practice. Section 5 refers to the exchange fund account. It is an exchange fund account under the Minister of Finance, who is not responsible to the house for the foreign exchange control board. Those people are above parliament, and how many times have I protested against that loudly and strongly. I have left no stone unturned in protesting against encroachments upon our constitution

Foreign Exchange Control
with regard to the foreign, exchange control board, the Bank of Canada and all similar organizations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if I might point out that the very purpose of my amendment was to bring information on gold and United States currency transactions to the house by requiring the minister to table it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall answer that in a moment. It is covered by another section.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Kamloops cannot complain if I speak in the same vein, then, though that seldom happens. Here we have a matter of tremendous importance to the Canadian people, the question of foreign exchange. What happened? Not long ago there was a considerable change in our rate of exchange. We were paying a premium of ten per cent on United States dollars. Overnight that was changed. Many people had paid the premium on American money in the normal way; but when they went to the bank to get the premium back, the day after, they could get nothing at all. How is it that no member of parliament rises to complain on behalf of those people, and those who had contracts with Americans, and who found those contracts considerably changed because of the action of the foreign exchange control board? Members of parliament heard nothing about it; the change was made bringing up our currency to the same level; it was done overnight, and now this section passes like the Chicago flyer, at full speed. It is railroaded through, and no member of parliament protests against it here in the house. It takes one who comes from the east to remind everyone in this house that we have a supreme duty to defend the rights of the Canadian people with regard to the foreign exchange control board as with regard to any other matter. Here we are now, just the same as when the Bank of Canada Act was discussed by the banking and commerce committee. The attention of hon. members is adroitly turned to another matter; it is carefully directed to one side, in order that they may forget the elementary matters, the elementary principles we have to defend in this house. How often do I hear hon. members complain about bureaucracy? Here we have bureaucracy at its worst, and it is swallowed like spring water.


John Thomas Hackett: By whom?


Jean-François Pouliot: By everybody.


John Thomas Hackett: Not by me.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope not, but the hon. gentleman did not rise when section 4 was
called and passed, railroaded through. I was the one to rise and awaken the hon. member for Stanstead to the fact that there is a danger here that should be noted by every member of this house. Now that he is awake, I hope he will not fall asleep again right away.


John Thomas Hackett: He has not fallen asleep for some time, nor has he been absent.


Jean-François Pouliot: What has he been doing about the matter? Nothing; yet he complains about bureaucracy all the time. He curses bureaucracy, but when the time comes to curb bureaucracy he is not here; he has gone away.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not to be interrupted by anyone when I have the floor, and I have the floor now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked the hon. member to permit a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman has not the right to interrupt when I am speaking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I have the floor, and I hold it. How many times have I done my best to try to awaken members of the House of Commons to a sense of reality, to a sense of their responsibility, but they were Rip Van Winkles, sleeping beauties. There they are; and that is what the Canadian people say from coast to coast, that they are asleep. When they do speak o<ut they speak as somnambulists. Here they are shadow-boxing all the time, complaining about the policies of the government when they have no constructive policies of their own to suggest. They only repeat the same useless criticism.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just a wilderness.


Jean-François Pouliot: A voice in the wilderness? I wonder if the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not wilderness personified, especially when he uses the strong language of the highlands in this house. But now we can do something for this country; we can curb the powers of the foreign exchange control board. In the banking committee members have been listening to Charybdis and Scylla, in the form of Louis Rasminsky. He has a fine voice; he was listened to by all hon. members, who said, "That gentleman has polished manners. We must believe in him". That is not a reason. You can pick up a dude anywhere who has polished manners, who his a facial massage every day, who has scent, who has a shampoo
Foreign Exchange Control

every day, who is dressed up by the finest tailors in this country. That is not a qualification to put him in charge of the foreign exchange control board.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The members of the committee have unanimously agreed that they'would direct their remarks to the section under consideration. At the present time the committee is considering section 5, and I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to direct his remarks to that section.


John Thomas Hackett: On a point of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, may I say the committee has not come to that decision unanimously; it is the Chairman who has reached it.


William Ross Macdonald: Then may I say that until the committee comes to some other unanimous decision it is my duty as Chairman to see that the remarks of all hon. members are directed to the section under consideration, in accordance with standing order 58. We are on section 5.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I agree with you entirely. Section 5 concerns the exchange fund account:
The special account in the name of the Minister of Finance, known as the exchange fund account, established by the Bank of Canada, pursuant to The Exchange Fund Act, is continued and all gold, currency, deposits, securities and other investments purchased or acquired with moneys out of the said account by or on behalf of the minister and held by him or on his behalf for the said account shall continue to be so held.
That account was held by him or on his behalf. And if it is held on his behalf, then by whom is it held on his behalf if it is not held by Louis Rasminsky and all the other big-wigs who control the foreign exchange control board? Therefore, sir, I am perfectly im order when I mention what shall be and what shall not be the qualifications of those who held that fund on behalf of the minister, as indicated in section 5 (1).
Everyone knows that when the word "minister" is used in that section, it shall be interpreted without forgetting paragraph (1) of the interpretation section which says:
"Minister" means the Minister of Finance.
But that definition is not complete, because "minister" means not only the Minister of Finance but also all those who act on his behalf, if we follow section 5. Therefore I submit I am perfectly in order when I mention what shall be and what shall not be the qualifications of those acting oni behalf of the the Minister of Finance.
Hon. members know vei-y well some people have boasted that fifteen days before the

Canadian dollar was placed on a parity with the United States dollar, there were stock-market dealings which gave evidence that it was known by a small group of privileged people what the decision was to be with regard to the ten per cent which had been paid on the Canadian dollar in the purchase of United States funds. It was denied in some quarters, but one has only to look at the file of newspapers to see the sales made on the stock market in order to realize that there had been a leak.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is completely mistaken in that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may be mistaken, but the records are there in the daily press. One has only to look at them. I will not say that it was done wilfully; probably it just happened that- way. But some good Canadian people have been placed in a very wrong and difficult position precisely because that change was made overnight.
The foreign exchange control board is an institution which considers itself far above parliament. We are here to-day to analyse the situation. If there are men who have the power to curb the influence of the foreign exchange control board, then it must be members of parliament, if they were to unite together. I make an earnest appeal to all members who are liberal-minded, whether they belong to one group or to another, to unite and to show the government that they are the bosses in this chamber.
Why should we discuss this matter until the millennium, to improve conditions that cannot be improved unless some radical change is made? It is possible for members of the House of Commons to take control of power, if they will forget their party prejudices, and to make reforms so badly needed in this country, as badly needed in the foreign exchange control board as in the Bank of Canada.
That is what should be done, and I appeal to hon. members once again. I appeal to their sense of duty to forget the party line or the party bonds which keep them with an ififeriority complex in regard to the bureaucrats who ruled this country during the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must again remind the hon. member for Temiscouata of standing order 58 (2), which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking to a point of order, may I say that I had raised a question in connection with section 5, and then took my seat

Foreign Exchange Control
to give the minister, as I thought he was about to do, a chance to reply. Actually the hon. member for Temiscouata took the minister's place, and really took what was my place in addition, and he refused to allow me to ask my question. I am bound by the rules of committee, but I would ask that the hon. member make his interruption brief so that the minister and I may resume our discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no point of order in what the hon. member said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I have raised a point of order. May I have the floor?


Jean-François Pouliot: I had the floor, and I do not want to be interrupted. I sat down when the hon. member rose to speak, but I will tell you why I am so insistent-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again speaking to a point of order, I would ask for the Chairman's ruling as to who has the floor?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Kamloops did ask a question of the Acting Minister of Finance, and it was my impression that the minister was considering the amendment which had been made. While he was considering the amendment the hon. member for Temiscouata commenced his address, and has the floor at the present time.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. But I will tell you now why I am so insistent and so persistent regarding section 5	(2). It is
because I remember the time when all the gold and currency held by the Canadian treasury, and all the securities in the treasury of this country were kept in the east block under the custody of the Minister of Finance. I also remember, sir, the day when all that gold, securities and currency was transferred by truck to the vaults of the Bank of Canada, not to be under the control of the Bank of Canada, mark you, but to be under the control of the foreign exchange control board.
I wonder why some members are silent about this matter, because the foreign exchange control board holds all the gold, all the securities and all the treasury notes which form the national wealth of the country, and which are the guarantee of the bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada. Long before the hon. member for Kamloops was elected, I warned the House of Commons in committee of the whole, in committee of supply and in other committees that it was absurd to have Canada bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada when the securities were in the hands of the foreign exchange control board.
Who thought of that? The promise to pay is made by the Bank of Canada, and the
guarantee is in the hands of the foreign exchange control board. That is on record in Hansard. There is discrimination; there is disparity; there is something that I cannot understand about it. All that should be either in the hands of the Bank of Canada which issues the bank notes or under the Minister of Finance. These notes should be issued in the name of the Dominion of Canada instead of being issued by the Bank of Canada.
I do not think it can be said that I am not in order when I remind the committee of these things because they should be known to all hon. members. Hon. members should be warned against the excessive powers that have been given to the foreign exchange control board. Our Social Credit friends complain about the monetary policies of this government, but this is one reform they should advocate, that all the treasure of this country, all the gold and securities, all the wealth that is in the hands of the foreign exchange control board should be placed in the hands of the Minister of Finance so that he may be responsible to parliament for all financial legislation passed by this house. That would be an easy thing to do.
That is what was done in the past. That is following the tradition of Fielding, a Liberal; it is following the tradition of White, a Conservative; it is following the tradition of Jim Robb, one of the last Liberals who was Minister of Finance. I want those hon. members to leave aside all their abstractions and get down to brass tacks. I want them to advocate reforms that are practical, reforms that can be brought about. Instead of getting into new fields that are unknown to all they should get back to the sound traditions of the past so that we could have parliamentary control to prevent waste and foolish expenditures. If all the expenditures that have been made by the foreign exchange control board had been submitted to the rigid control of the house the financial condition of this country at the present time would be different from what it is.
I am not saying this to discourage my hon. friends of the Social Credit group or of any other party in this house; I say this in order to encourage them to learn the history of Canada, to learn the lessons of the past, to remember those things which were good in the past so that we may come back to them and improve conditions instead of making them worse.


Ernest George Hansell: Why not teach the government? We are not in office.
Mr. POULIOT; No, but I want the support of hon. members. I am. putting things in black and white; [DOT] and I am hopeful that my hon. friends will end up by supporting these
Foreign Exchange Control

submissions which are made, not only to the government and to the members of the government but to the members of all parties and groups in this house. In saying these things I do not speak as a government supporter; I speak as a Liberal who wants reform in this country. I think we shall be able to have reform only by men of good will in this house uniting together to secure it.
Then there is the question of infallibility; some people feel that they cannot make a mistake, that they are infallible, that they are always right. They may be right in abstract but it is much better to be right in fact. It is much better to redress wrongs, to improve conditions for all Canadian taxpayers so that they may have a ray of hope for the future.
I assume that my hon. friends are for public finance; I assume that they believe that the Minister of Finance should be responsible to the House of Commons for all that is done by the various agencies under his control. Not only is that the Liberal policy of the past; it is the Conservative policy of the past. Since there have been only two major parties, that was the policy of Canadian statesmen for the past fifty or sixty years. That was the policy until this organization was set up, an organization which was copied from organizations in other countries.
Why could the Minister of Finance not deal directly with other nations in connection with monetary matters? Why does he need the assistance of a board which is not responsible to parliament, which is composed of members of the intelligentsia which all of us curse, if not openly at least secretly, on occasion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The assistance of deputy
ministers.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is the worst of the
intelligentsia and he should have been fired long time ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are five or six of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I named them already and I shall not name them again. The trouble with the government is that it will never admit its mistakes. I suggested to the government to fire all these so-called fine brains which are a curse to the country and to the private individual. But I was told that they were great Liberals. They are great Liberals that are bringing this country on the rocks and it is time that the House of Commons awakened to its responsibilities. We should see through the veil of propaganda that is put out on behalf of these men who are incompetent and unworthy of the high office they hold at the expense and suffering of the Canadian people.

I cannot understand why the big bankers who are supposed to be so powerful did not protest when the wealth which is behind the Canadian bank notes was transferred from the vaults in the east block where the privy council sits to the vaults of the Bank of Canada. Why did they not raise their voices in protest? The bankers were mute just as they were when the Bank of Canada was instituted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; carried. The plain fact is that the banks were derelict in their duty. My hon. friend in the Social Credit group is suggesting that I should not proceed, but I am saying exactly what they should have said and what- they would have said if they had been well informed as to the real situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not very much impressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs when he says "order."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Veterans Affairs is not impressed by the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that and I am soriy for him.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. My concern is whether or not the hon. member is directing his remarks to clause 5. At times it occurred to me that they might have been very remotely related to clause 5. May I ask him to direct his remarks to that clause which has to do with-and I read the marginal notes- "exchange fund account continued; minister may purchase gold, currencies, securities, etc.; minister may sell gold, currency, securities, etc.; report to parliament."


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. I have another observation to make. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, you and my hon. colleagues will understand that I at least have made a solemn protest against this legislation.
Another ground of complaint that I have

and I lodge it as a Canadian and a Liberal-is this. When we got gold from Great Britain in payment of our exports, that gold was turned over to the United States, not to the credit of Canada but to the credit of Great Britain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; it was stated
by the finance minister in one of his speeches that the last payment of gold that we had

Foreign Exchange Control
received from Great Britain, in 1940 or 1941 was turned over to the United States in part payment of obligations contracted by the United Kingdom in that country. I protest against that. I have numerous other grounds of complaint; but I shall wait a little before I submit them to you, sir, and in the meantime I am anxious to hear what suggestions my hon. friends and colleagues have to make to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I amplify a question
I asked of the. minister? I asked if he would accept an amendment. I did not move one. I am sure that the hon. member for Temiscouata had no desire to be unfair or to misrepresent members on this side, but he was not strictly accurate when he said that no member of the house other than himself was concerned to limit the powers of the foreign exchange control board. I have in mind an amendment to section 5 requiring the minister to table in the house or insert in the Canada Gazette full information as to the dealings of the board to enable parliament to exercise control over his responsibility and the conduct of the board. That is the object of my amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend
allow me to give a word of explanation before he moves his amendment, because I think he may have overlooked another section which also deals with this matter. There are three sections under which information is to be given, and after he hears my explanation he may conclude that his amendment is not necessary; I do not know. But I would appreciate the opportunity of making the explanation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do that. Would the minister accept my suggestion to include paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not believe it is
necessary, for the following reasons. If my hon. friend will look at section 5 he will see that there is no limit placed on the amount of gold or United States currency that the board may hold, but there is a limit fixed by the governor in council on the amount of foreign currencies other than gold or currency of the United States. Under subsection 4 of section 5 a report must be made to parliament stating the amounts of all these other currencies authorized to be held, and under section 7 a report must be made to parliament, or be published in the Canada Gazette if parliament is not then sitting, with respect to advances made to the exchange fund. Then
under section 39 the annual report of the board, which would contain full information as to the holdings of gold and United States currency, has to be made within five months after the 31st day of December. Hon. members who were on the banking and commerce committee will recall that on the suggestion of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario the period was shortened from six to five months to ensure that the information would be available, if possible, when parliament was in session. So that under section 5 (4), section 7 (2) and section 39 (1) and (2) the information which my hon. friend suggests should be made available, and which I agree should be made available as to paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 5, will be produced. It is not felt desirable to disclose the holdings of gold and United States currency sooner than five months after the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason why the disclosure as to those holdings is covered by section. 39.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised by those who are familiar with foreign exchange control operations that in order to prevent undue speculative transactions a period of five months is necessary. These three amendments were made as a result of the discussions that took place in the committee. I am convinced that my hon. friend's point is covered. As the committee will see, if parliament should not then be sitting the information has to be published in the Canada Gazette and be tabled in parliament immediately following the commencement of the next session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That covers part of my suggested amendment but not altogether. Admittedly amendments were adopted as a result of the deliberations of the banking and commerce committee, but they did not meet the purpose we had in mind when we asked that the information be given to parliament earlier than is now provided. My suggested amendment is a further attempt to comply with our desire to have the information quickly.
To illustrate the necessity of my amendment, and in answer to the minister's statement that two other sections take care of the subject-matter of my request, I would refer him to what took place in the house on July 22, to be found on page 3667 of Hansard when, in answer to a question by the hon. member for York West as to what other countries besides the United States Canada
*444
Foreign Exchange Control

sold gold during the fiscal years 1943, 1944 and 1945, the parliamentary assistant to the minister replied:
As such transactions reflect the exchange policies and transactions of foreign countries or central banks, it is not considered desirable to give details regarding them.
One of the objections taken by this party to the bill is that it sets up another board which to some extent is subject to the criticism advanced by the hon. member for Temiscouata, in that it is not directly responsible to parliament. Parliament attempts to get information and is sometimes denied that information. The answer is frequently given, when we criticize the policies of the board and say that it is a supreme board, that if any objection is taken to the policies of the board it can be raised in the banking and commerce committee or in parliament. That would be all right if it were a true picture; but it is not, because frequently the information sought is denied, and how can we criticize the policy of the board and say :hat they are not administering the act in the nterests of the country if we are denied the .nformation on grounds of public policy? We are told: We cannot tell you with whom we have had dealings or how much gold we hold because it is not in the public interest to disclose that information. We are further told that if we have any objections to the way in which this board is carrying on there is the high court of parliament to which to appeal. But what sort of appeal can one make when the facts on which parliament could base its judgment are withheld from it? So the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that we get full information as to the holdings in gold, in currency of the United States, in currency of countries other than the United States, and of securities of or guaranteed by the dominion. Those are the four classes covered by section 5(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d). All we ask is that information with regard to these holdings be tabled at the same time as the information with regard to the holdings of currency of the United States and be reported to parliament within thirty days after March 31.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The date March 31 does not apply to the United States currency but only to other currencies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I should have said, so that the holdings in gold, United States currency and Dominion of Canada securities shall be reported at the same time as the holdings of currencies of other countries and reported by virtue of subsection 4 of section 5. The reason I ask that is that, as matters
[Mr. Fulton. I
stand, we cannot obtain the information which is required to enable us to make an intelligent criticism of the policies of the board. Unless we can get that information we are handing over our powers and will be in a position where we cannot make a criticism, for we shall be told, "You gave the board that power in the first place and, now that the board is administering the fund in accordance with the act, you can have no objection". So long as we cannot get the information we are not able to make an intelligent criticism, and it is to enable us to do this that I move the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should just like to answer that by saying that, if my hon. friend insists, perhaps he had better move the amendment, but I cannot accept it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move:
That section 5 of the bill be amended by deleting the words "paragraph (e)" where they appear in lines 37 and 38 of subsection (4) thereof and inserting in their place the words "paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)."


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the amendment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I comment on it first? The amendment as it is put will be largely meaningless. I cannot accept it even if it were changed to put it in the terms which I think my hon. friend wants. Subsection 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) authorize the minister to purchase with moneys in the exchange fund account gold or currency of the United States. There is no limitation placed on the amounts. Under paragraph (c) the minister may purchase currencies of other countries up to such amounts as may be authorized from time to time by the governor in council. Subsection 4 of this section requires the minister to report to parliament or publish in the Canada Gazette the extent of the authorization to purchase foreign currencies, but not necessarily the amount of such foreign currencies held at that time. That information is given to parliament in the annual report of the board, which under the amended section which we shall come to in a moment, must be tabled not later than five months after the end of the year. The information will be made available and it can be discussed in parliament. The amendment of section 39 was put in expressly so that parliament would have an opportunity of doing so; and in all the five or six years I have been here parliament has been in session in the month of May, so that I think my hon. friend is mistaken when he says that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing this matter with knowledge of the facts. The government must come before

Foreign Exchange Control
parliament each year with an appropriation for the expenses of this board. That is going to afford a full opportunity each year for criticism and discussion of these operations, and under section 4, which we passed a moment ago, the board is responsible to the minister. Therefore I cannot accept my hon. friend's amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not quite appreciate the reason for the minister's reluctance to disclose the amounts which have been expended on the purchase of gold or currency of the United States. We fully discussed this matter in th.e banking and commerce committee, and in order to save the time of the committee, I am not going to repeat all the arguments we advanced at that time, but I would point out that at present we are limited to a very great extent in making an intelligent criticism of the effect on the gold and United States currency holdings of the board of the restoration of the Canadian dollar to par with the United States dollar, by the fact that we do not know how much gold or United States currency the board holds. All that this is is an attempt to get this information before parliament earlier than would otherwise be the case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot agree that that information should be given sooner than the 31st of May in each year for the figures as of the preceding December 31.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, if that is the case, and the minister refuses to accept the amendment, I will close by pointing out again to the committee of the whole that the effect of the amendment is merely to enable parliament to obtain, sooner than would otherwise be the case, information which would enable it to make an intelligent criticism of the operation of this board, and information which, if it had it now, would enable it to understand fully the effects of the restoration of the Canadian dollar to par in so far as any losses in United States holdings in the foreign exchange control board are concerned. At present we cannot make that criticism.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can hardly support the amendment of the hon. gentleman because, for me, the only possible reform of the exchange control board would be to abolish it.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived.


John Thomas Hackett: This is an important section, because it confers upon an agency of the government great powers. The pedigree of an idea is sometimes interesting, and the idea incorporated in this section may be found, if nowhere else, in the Regina
programme of the C.C.F. party. One finds in that document, in the second paragraph, the following:
We aim to replace the present capitalist system.
Then, under the heading of planning:
The first step in this direction will be the setting up of a national planning commission consisting of a small body of economists, engineers and statisticians, assisted by an appropriate technical staff.
Which to an extent might be either the wartime prices and trade board or the foreign exchange control board.
A little further down in this same programme of the socialist party one finds this statement:
The commission will be responsible to the cabinet and will work in cooperation with the managing boards of the socialized industries.
Under the second paragraph, which bears the heading, "Socialization of Finance", we find this statement:
Control of finance is the first step to the control of the whole economy. The chartered banks must be socialized and removed from the control of privaite profit-seeking interests; and the national banking system thus established must have at its head a central bank to control the flow of credit and the general price level, and to regulate foreign exchange operations.
I point out that this is a socialistic enactment, and because it is I am fearful of it, fearful of the principle which places in government the management and control of our economic system. The control of production, of wealth, is the control of human life itself. The relationship between what we sometimes call money or credit and production is so intimate that if we yield up the control of these essential elements to the government we are yielding to it control over our persons as well as over our property.


William Irvine: Will the hon. member not admit that almost every nation of the world to-day, whether socialist or capitalist, has found it necessary to resort to some form of control of exchange?
Mr. HAOIvETT: It is true that forms of control of exchange have been, shall I say, foisted on many an unfortunate people. Control of exchange obtained in Japan, in Italy, in Germany; it obtains, so far as our information goes, in Russia; and wherever these controls do obtain there has ceased to be any political liberty. The existence of party, as we know it, has been eliminated and replaced by a dictatorial oligarchy which has rendered life completely devoid of freedom.
To pursue the question further:	forms
of control have been introduced, I believe, in
Foreign Exchange Control

Australia amid great financial and fiscal anxiety and upheaval, and likewise in New Zealand. Forms of control were introduced into France so effectively that France stood on the threshold of civil war and public commotion at the outbreak of the great war, and so effectively was that country hampered by the socialistic system that- it failed in a moment of great crisis in what many Frenchmen considered to be their high mission.
We come now to England and we find there a system of control. The necessities of that great country have brought upon it very sad days. Whether financial control will succeed in relieving the situation of that people we know not. We know that under that system it has required the assistance of people like ourselves and the United States, and it is too soon yet to say to what extent it will succeed. But there are indications in the by-elections that have been recently held in England that the people have not confidence in their government, that it is a waning quantity. In the general election, the government supporter was elected by 19,000-that was less than a year ago-a successor to him has been elected in a very recent by-election by a very meagre majority.


William Ross Macdonald: May I interrupt the
hon. member to remind him of standing order 58, subsection 2, which stipulates that speeches in committee shall be not only relevant, but strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


John Thomas Hackett: I am grateful to the
Chairman for his admonition. I may say, in the first place, that I was endeavouring to answer a relevant and pertinent question by the hon. member for Cariboo. In the second place, I submit that anything I have said is entirely within the scope of section 5, which is now under discussion. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that almost the entire bill seeds and stems from this section 5 and that I would be able, without going beyond the terms of the section, to discuss the bill in its widest aspects, because the germ of the whole enactment is here.
The words "exchange fund account" are above the section. The exchange fund account is a very large one. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is several hundreds of millions, and possibly a billion dollars. Just how did that come into existence? Exchange is or was a commodity that vras sold on the market like wheat or lumber. Competition in that market was very keen. The normal rate was one-eighth of one per cent. But when the amount was one of any size it frequently was reduced to one-sixty-

fourth, and competition was so keen toward the end of the period which preceded control that it sometimes took a magnifying glass for the banks to find a profit. But when government came into control it immediately determined that the exchange should be one per cent. The government bought United States exchange for $1.10 and sold it for $1.11. The moment the government enters business the cost to the people is greatly enhanced. Whereas under the competitive system you and I paid one-eighth or one-sixty-fourth of one per cent for our exchange, under government operation we paid one per cent. Someone has been good enough to give me within the last few minutes the amount the government advanced to the foreign exchange control board to enable it to do business; it was between $1,300 million and $1,500 million. If hon. gentlemen will take the ordinary interest rates on a sum of that size they will see that the foreign exchange control board was handsomely treated by the people of Canada and that the expense of operating it is very high indeed.
It is not agreeable to me to criticize the persons of people who disagree with me. I do not wish any of the gentlemen wTho are in the service of the government to feel that because I cannot share their views I am critical of their persons. I do not share the views of the gentlemen who administer the Bank of Canada or the views of the gentlemen who administer the foreign exchange control board, and I am forced to the conclusion that through them we are introducing into this country modes and manners that are not well suited to this continent. In Europe the multiplicity and continuity of wars have forced the governments of those unfortunate countries to resort to methods of finance which are not indigenous to this continent and which I believe have no place here. We have brought here a central bank; we have set up here a foreign exchange control board, the result of which is to give a fictitious value to our money or to take from it a value that it has. We are making of our currency and exchange a plaything of this group who, sincere though they may be, are not men of experience, who are not men who have learned the lessons of trade and commerce in the hard school of experience. They came into office during the war, when we had to adopt methods that irked us all, that we might make an all-out effort in the championship of ideals in which we believed. The effort was a success; but now we find that the system we invoked to meet the great perils of the war still persists, that these gentlemen who managed our economy for a time, as a necessity of war, are still
Federal District Commission

to be expended either in the provincial capital or in some other suitable place as the provincial government may determine. I do not think all this money should be used for a national war memorial in one place. Let it be clear that this party will support the expenditure of money in Ottawa to make this a beautiful capital, not on the excuse that it is a national war memorial, but on its merits, and for no other reason.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-"National capital district."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, when this measure was at the resolution stage the leader of the opposition asked certain questions with respect to it. I had some answers ready; but while the motion for second reading of the 'bill was being put by Mr. Speaker, an hon. member was already on his feet to take the floor, and no sooner had the last words left the Speaker's lips that that hon. member commenced. From that moment until two minutes ago, when the motion was put, there has been always at least one hon. member up before the preceding speaker had quite finished. Since it would take me more than the two minutes now remaining before eleven o'clock to answer the questions asked, I move that you do now report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. CHURCH:: It should be withdrawn and left as a municipal institution.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


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

[Stage Direction]
Federal District Commission
occur to me to-morrow. When the federal district commissioa undertakes its work I hope that this is one of the first things that will be
done, because I think it will be a great attraction and a great convenience to tourists who visit the grounds. I hope that the Minister of Public Works will give attention to it. It may not come under the federal district commission at all. I thought that perhaps we could finish this debate to-night.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition)': On the resolution stage of this proposal I asked certain questions of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who introduced it. I was not here earlier this evening, but I understand that he did not speak on this stage of the bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He has had no opportunity yet.
Mr. BRACKEN:: So far as I am concerned, he will have an opportunity in five minutes, if he chooses to take it.
The questions I asked at that time were these as reported at page 4385 of Hansard, I said:
I am rising now to ask the minister if, when we go into committee to deal with the bill itself, he will give us a brief statement as to what has been done by the state in connection with this project, when it was started, roughly what has been done, the expenditures from year to year from the beginning, in tabulated form, and what the national war memorial aspects of this proposal are likely to mean in the way of increased cost to the state.
If we had some of that information we might have proceeded with more confidence at this stage. But I am sure the minister will give us that information later, if not to-night.
In the debate so far, we have heard comments regarding the recommendations of a joint committee which was set up a couple of years ago to consider the relations between the Canadian government and the municipality of Ottawa or the community of Ottawa. That commission made four recommendations. I shall refer to two of them. One was that the number of members on the commission should be increased, and another was that the appropriation should be increased to $300,000 a year-I think it was $200,000 before. The bill before us proposes what? The recommendation of the commission was to increase the grant to $300,000 for five years. The proposed bill suggests an appropriation of $300,000 a year for not less than fifteen years. In addition, it proposes to make available a lump sum of $3,000,000. It also proposes to call the project a national war memorial. As I see it, these are the main features of the bill
before us. The committee which was appointed made no recommendation with respect to expenditures for fifteen years, made no recommendation with respect to a lump sum of $3 million, made no recommendation with respect to making this federal district project a national war memorial. Those features have been added by the government to the commission's report. I suggest that the government might have stirred itself to see that we had something more in the way of a detailed report from the French expert who has been retained to study this question and make recommendations. In the absence of that, rumour has it that, before we are through with it, this project will cost the state scores of millions of dollars. It is not expected that at this time anyone can see into the distant future, but if we had something more of the commission's ideas, to indicate what they have in mind, I am quite sure the house could act more intelligently.
With respect to beautifying the nation's capital, I have not heard anybody in this house disagree. Certainly I do not. Whatever the future may hold for me, I will stand with all those who desire to see that done and who will make the necessary sacrifices to see that Canada's capital is the most beautiful in the world, not because I want to make it the only war memorial in Canada, but because we should do this by reason of the fact that it is the nation's capital, and without any other excuse. I do not believe in making a national war memorial an excuse for spending a great deal of money in Ottawa. We do not need that excuse; and in addition, I do not believe all the money for a national war memorial should be spent in any one place. The provinces of Canada and all the people of Canada helped to win the war.
When this bill passes second reading, as it will, and is considered in committee I propose to advance two amendments. The membership of the commission is being increased, and the government is generously saying to the prairie provinces that they may have one member, and to the maritimes that they may have one also. At the same time they are saying to the city of Hull that they may have one, and to the city of Ottawa that they may have one. In any national war memorial proposal, if that is what this is to be, I think every province in Canada should be represented, and I give notice to that effect.
Then, if these large sums are to be used for the purposes of a national war memorial I am going to move that a certain portion of those moneys be made available for the same purpose in each province of Canada,

Federal District Commission
the capital, and the next step-perhaps it is of equal importance although in a different way-is to stop the pollution of the Ottawa river. If you want to beautify a place you have to get your underpinnings right, but as long as you continue to despoil this river by dumping sewage into it you will not have a healthy or beautiful countryside. However, everyone has his own ideas as to how it should be done.
I do not think we are justified in giving a blank cheque of S3.000.000 to the commission to spend as they see fit; and as I read the bill, that is the purpose of section 9. Last year we increased the grant from $200,000 to $300,000.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: You are speaking of the Ottawa agreement. This is not the Ottawa agreement.


Douglas King Hazen: But under this act we are going to spend about $300,000 a year, and, in addition to that, we are asked to vote $3,000,000 in the form of a blank cheque to the commission. When we vote money in this house we should vote it for a specific purpose instead of being so trustful. I do not want to be mean about this thing, but in looking through the estimates of the Department of Public Works I saw very large sums provided for the city of Ottawa which must help not only to maintain but to improve it, and I hesitate to vote $3,000,000 more at this time for this purpose. Perhaps if the Minister of Public Works and I could get together on Chance Harbour we might come to an agreement.


Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: Until just a few moments ago I was pretty well satisfied with the formation of this commission because, as hon. members said there was to be one member from the maritimes, I naturally assumed he would be from Nova Scotia and therefore I felt that I had no plea to make. But in view of the fact that hon. members from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have challenged Nova Scotia's right to have the maritime member on the commission, I simply want in a few words to assert Nova Scotia's undoubted right to have that representative, or, better still, I think each province should be represented on the commission.
Hon. members have spoken about and extolled the beauty of New Brunswick and other provinces, and I agree with them entirely. I do not feel that I need to say anything about the beauty of Nova Scotia, because all hon. members are fully familiar with it.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You have no apples.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; we have apples in Nova Scotia, and I say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that they are good ones.


Mrs. STRUM:: Apple sauce, too.


Mr. BRIDGES:: The female of the species is more deadly than the male.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot compete on those grounds. I say, Mr. Speaker, since we have recently been left off the postage stamps, as hon. members have heard, we do not want to be left off this commission. Nova Scotia agrees with the proposal as set forth in this bill. We agree that Canada should have the most beautiful capital in the world, and we are quite prepared to make our contribution to it. We do not feel that this will go the whole way toward solving the problem of maritime rights, but I presume we shall have other opportunities to speak on that issue.


Angus MacInnis: Because of the hurry we were in yesterday I thought we would have completed this debate by the time I came in. When I left the chamber the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was in Greece. I see that he is now back. Despite all that has been said in opposition to this bill, there are some things that may be said in its favour. Perhaps this is not the time to deal with it because there are so many other things that could be done. When the proposal was first made in September 1945, the leader of this group gave his blessing to it and he did it for the group. Therefore, if it is planned carefully and the commissioners appointed from all across the , dominion as is proposed in the bill we should give it our support.
There is another point to which I should like to refer, but I do not know whether it would come under the federal district commission or not. I took it up with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) early in the session. There is a walk around this building which up to a few years ago was known as "Lovers' walk."


An hon. MEMBER:: What is it now?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know what it is now; it is not Lovers' walk because no lovers can use it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How do you know?


George Russell Boucher: Are you too old to use it now?


Angus MacInnis: No; but I never climbed over fences for anything of that kind; I want to do it in the proper way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: I imagine my Scotch humour does not take in the joke; it may

Federal District Commission
have made the statement that the maritime provinces are to be generously treated by having one member on this commission; and I must protest. Perhaps you may think that we in the maritimes are inclined to be, to use a vulgar word, "kickers", but we are so often ignored that we have been called the forgotten provinces of Canada. I do not want to be accused of going back too far into history, because we are told, whenever we complain, that we go back to confederation.; but let me tell hon. members that when we came to discuss the question of confederation, certainly more than one member from the maritimes was called forward to discuss the plan.
'Let me remind hon. members that we are one million people in the maritime provinces -no small population. We may not be known because on the map of this broad country we occupy a very small place. That may be the reason why we are not known. It may be because so few from the other provinces know our maritimers. I have been amused a couple of times since coming here by being asked, when I told a confrere that I had just returned from the northern part of New Brunswick, whether I had found the crossing of the bay of Fundy very rough. We know too little about the maritimes and that is why we are too often forgotten.
The hon, member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Grant)-perhaps he was too humble-said that he came from perhaps the loveliest province in the dominion. Let me say emphatically that I think we in the maritimes come from the garden of Eden in the whole dominion. If it is beauty you wish to implant in Ottawa, then why not choose men who were born and who have lived amid the natural beauty of the dominion, in the maritime provinces? To them the knowledge of real beauty comes natural and I am sure they would be a great help on the commission.
I should probably also plead for the west, which is supposed to be represented by only one member, but they can defend their own rights. I do not want to be parochial or provincial, and therefore I will support the proposal that this commission represent every province in the dominion. The hon, member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) said that under the bill the commission could represent every province, that whoever might have the appointing of the commission might take a member from each province. I do not like the word "may". We in the maritime provinces have suffered too long as a result of depending on the word "may". There is too
much uncertainty about it. We wish to have the word "shall" instead, and I hope that will be done.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: While we are making up our minds as to the amount of money, or the amount of work which may be done in beautifying the city of Ottawa, I hope that in the meantime nothing will be allowed to impair the natural beauties of the Gatineau park. We speak of beautifying the federal district, but luckily for Ottawa in particular and the Canadian people in general, it is not a case of beautifying the Gatineau park but of preserving the natural beauties which are already there.
Even our C.C.F. friends would have no objection to the preservation of the natural beauties of the Gatineau district and the Gatineau park.
Mr. D. KING HA2EN (St. John-Albert): In the county of St. John in the province of New Brunswick there is a small settlement called Chance Harbour. The people who live there are fishermen, who make their livelihood on the stormy waters of the bay of Fundy. For some time past they have been endeavouring to have a breakwater established there to protect their boats from the sea. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). I have looked in the estimates this year and I find no appropriation for the establishment of that project. I am willing to enter into some dickering with the government, and I would possibly consider voting for this large sum of money if the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Fisheries and the government would give some attention to the needs of the people in that constituency.'


James Horace King: The hon. member is out of order.


Douglas King Hazen: I will not pursue that matter any farther. I have gone as far as I need in that direction. I believe that Ottawa should be beautified and improved as the capital of this great dominion. I think we all agree that, while the fathers of confederation were very wise in many respects, they were shortsighted when it came to laying a plan for the development of this city. I presume we all have our ideas of how it should be done, but if I had the planning the first thing I would do would be to establish a boulevard from the main entrance of the parliament buildings to the museum. The establishment of a boulevard right down Metcalfe street would be the first step to take if we want to improve
Federal District Commission

a national library. The need of a national library is very great. A national gallery is another. And there are other national projects. What I am saying now is that the idea of development of a national capital area does not need to be supported by the idea of a national war memorial, the need of which existed before the war and would have been with us had there been no war. So let us not confuse these ideas.
There is one other thought to which I should like to give expression.' I am, I hope, no narrow Canadian nationalist. I hope that in the breadth of view that will prevail in parliament we shall always be willing to learn where we can from other peoples. But I should like to think that in years to come, when this national area has been developed and visitors come here and express admiration of it, we shall be able to tell them that it is a Canadian expression of the conception of the national capital. In saying that, I should like to see those immediately charged with responsibility for the development of the capital area free to consult the best advice anywhere in the world; but I want to see this conception developed as a Canadian conception, the driving force behind it Canadian, the expression of thought Canadian, and the work carried out principally by Canadians. Let us consult others and get the best advice where we can, but let the work be carried out by Canadians. We have the experts here who can do it, and do it in keeping with the national objective.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that we do not wish to see lavish expenditure made. We want an adequate return for all expenditure. I think that principle ought to guide us in connection with all our planning, whether of war memorials or the development of the national capital area or in any other way. Before sums are voted for the development of the area, apart from those immediately provided in the bill, we shall wish to see the plans; we shall wish as a parliament to be satisfied that the plans which are developed and the way in which it is proposed that the work be carried on to a conclusion will be in keeping with the national objectives. Let us encourage the planning; but before large amounts are voted to put the plan into execution, it must be submitted to parliament, and parliament must have full opportunity to record its approval or disapproval.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I could not allow this bill to go through without rising to speak upon it. I want to criticize as strongly as I can the timing of this bill. When I do so I do not think I am less a Canadian than any other

hon. member, nor do I say that I am not in favour of the beautification of this city. When I first came here the beauty of Ottawa and the surrounding district appealed to me very much, and I think it is one of those odd psychological facts that those things which are beautiful we like to make more beautiful. Two of the recent speakers on the government side said they came from the most beautiful part of Canada. While one may not be able to claim as much for the province from which I come, it is yet one of the most important provinces in the dominion; and had it not been for the good fortune of rains this year, that great area where we grow so much wheat and other produce to feed not only the people of Canada but the peoples of the world would have been a source of great worry to all hon. members, because we would not have been growing any appreciable amount of wheat and other foodstuffs. This bill asks for appropriations from the consolidated revenue of this country of $300,000, and when I read press reports, with which I agree, that under the Greber plan perhaps $300 million will ultimately be required1 for the beautification of this area, I say very strongly as a democratic socialist that we should1 put first things first.
I come from an area of this dominion where I have seen people moving out of that "Pal-liser triangle" by the hundreds and the thousands into other parts of our province to try to get a livelihood, just because this government and past governments have not seen fit to make provision and set on foot undertakings to give irrigation to those areas where we can harness our rivers and assure our people of the production of crops, and I say, therefore, that this bill is inopportune.
When it is said that we should beautify this district and be proud of it as a national capital I quite agree. I believe all hon. members are of opinion that we should have the finest and most beautiful capital possible. But it is an economic contradiction that throughout the world we see beautiful capitals which have been built up, and right alongside these evidences of wealth we find scenes of abject poverty. That is true even of this country. We do not have to go many miles, not only from our capital city but from other urban and rural areas, to find similar conditions. So I say as a socialist that we should put first things first; and when our scale of living is brought up to a decent standard, when we have health insurance and the rest, the time will have come to introduce a bill such as this.


Mr. C. T. RICHARD (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this discussion-I approve the principle of the bill-but I notice that other members

Federal District Commission
Galt was not founded by John Galt, the great Scottish colonizer and settler of western Ontario. It was settled, before John Galt came to Upper Canada, by Absalom Shade and was known as Shade's Mills when John Galt came to visit it-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct. He cut down the first tree. There began the real development of Galt, Guelph and Goderich.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Absalom Shade named this settlement "Galt" in honour of the visit of his friend John Galt.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But we are far from the city of Galt at the moment. This city of Ottawa is one that no one can come to as a member of parliament does without being very proud of it. Prior to entering parliament, I had been a frequent visitor to the city of Ottawa, but I must confess that I never fully appreciated the beauty of this city and especially the majestic beauty of these buildings and of the hill on which they stand until I entered parliament. I think those who were responsible for selecting this site for the home of Canada's national parliament were men of great vision to whom we owe an inestimable debt of gratitude. This majestic and dignified building is worthy to house this nation's parliament, and this great hill on which it rests is undoubtedly one of the beauty spots of the nation. Any man who calls himself a Canadian need have nothing but pride in the location of these buildings. It is to be regretted that many of the other government buildings in this city are not in keeping with these majestic parliament buildings. I think we ought to take from them our inspiration in seeking to develop in this district sites worthy of the national capital.
I was glad to hear what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) had to say to-night, because he gave expression to a thought that has impressed itself on my mind many a time as I have strolled around the rear of the parliament buildings and looked over the expanse of the Ottawa river to the lovely Gatineau hills beyond. Whoever was responsible for permitting the location just across the river, in sight of all who visit the parliament buildings, of a match factory from which every vagrant breeze blows sulphur fumes across these grounds and into this building was surely lacking in foresight. I hope that the Minister of Public Works and those charged with the responsibility for making plans for beautifying this capital area will see to it that provision is made for clearing up that unsightly picture immediately on the other side of the river and eliminating those sulphur fumes.
I entirely endorse what the Minister of Public Works said to-night about the necessity of taking a broad view and making both sides of the Ottawa river contribute to the beauty of this district. I have always been an enthusiastic advocate of municipal planning and had something to do with efforts in that direction in the city of Toronto. One thing that can be said with certainty about municipal and community planning is that the longer it is deferred the more costly it becomes. To those who feel that the prospect before us now is one of substantial expenditure, may I say that if we leave it much longer, the cost will be so much greater. So, if we believe in planning, let us begin now and lose no more time.
I wish to make one reservation with reference to this bill and any support I give to the general idea of a national area which will be a credit to the nation. I draw attention particularly to it because of the explanatory note which appears in the bill. I read the first sentence.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, so as to enable the commission to discharge more readily the duties that will devolve upon it in connection with the development of the national capital area as a national war memorial.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that, as far as I am concerned, as one member of this house, the two thoughts are entirely separate and distinct. The development of this capital area ought to stand on its own feet, without reference to any national war memorial. It should be a national objective which has no reference to the war and no reference to the memorial. It should be a national objective because, being the kind of nation we are and hope to be, we ought to have here a capital that is worthy of the nation, regardless of war memorials. If we are to think in terms of war memorials, frankly, I can think of some types of memorial which would be much more in keeping with the conception of an adequate national war memorial than the development of this federal area.


Mr. ROBINSON (Simcoe East):: Will the hon. member please name them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should be very glad to give a number of them.


William Alfred Robinson: Please do.


James Horace King: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To begin with, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said,

Federal District Commission
war memorial. If we are to apply this money to the building of a war memorial, it should be spent in the nine provinces of the dominion. Instead of the money being spent only in this city, it should be spent in Toronto, Montreal, Saskatoon, Calgary and all across the dominion. I can see no reason why we should be asked at this time to vote-


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: $20,000,000 for Sunnybrook.


Mr. COCKERAM:: The hon. member for Ottawa East is being very funny.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am not funny.


Alan Cockeram: I think this is the first time I have heard him speak in this house.


Jean-Thomas Richard: You are wrong.


Alan Cockeram: I may be wrong and I am willing to admit it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He spoke very well, anyhow.


Alan Cockeram: I admit that, but at the same time-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is your kick?


Alan Cockeram: Both members for the Ottawa ridings must support this bill, but I believe that this government has a greater duty than to vote money for the city of Ottawa. I believe that the money we have voted in the past has done much over a period of years to relieve many of the unfortunate situations that have arisen. When we talk of a war memorial, why should we spend a colossal sum, to which it appears to me there is no limit, on this one city? After all, the men who volunteered and went overseas in the Canadian army came from every province of the Dominion of Canada. Very few people in this dominion find their way here in a period of a year or many years. If we are to spend a colossal amount of money on a war memorial, spend it in beautifying the capital cities of our provinces from which these men went to serve overseas.
I have no objection to spending money for the beautification of Ottawa. I believe it is a good thing to do. But why centre a national war memorial in this city? We have a national war memorial here now, the Peace Tower, which is a great memorial that compares with the memorial in Edinburgh which many of us have seen. I believe that if we are to do something worth while and want the people of this country to see something for the money spent we should spend this money in the provincial capitals throughout the dominion.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support wholeheartedly the principle of this bill and to endorse the remarks made by previous speakers from British Columbia and others who have supported the bill.
In a matter like this, I think we should certainly avoid taking a parochial outlook. This is a national matter in the national interest and I think we should maintain the correct perspective. I am as anxious as any other hon. member to see increased old age pensions, better social security benefits and that everything possible be done for the working people as a whole, but I cannot see any logic or sound argument in criticizing what, after all, is a small expenditure when one compares it with our national expenditures as a whole.
I have always been interested in taking around this building people from my own province of British Columbia, particularly young people. A nation does not live by bread alone, and when you take young people and older people around these buildings you have evidence of the fact when you see how inspired they are by the buildings and surroundings and by the fact that they have had an opportunity of visiting their national capital. I think, this proposal further to beautify the federal district will be an inspiration not only to individuals but to other cities in Canada, to every town and every village and to every Canadian who has an opportunity to visit this district. I am quite sure that, as the years go by, the greatly increased facilities for travel will enable [DOT] great numbers of Canadians to visit the national capital and have an opportunity personally to see the scheme as it is developed.
I want to support two objections that were raised to certain features of the bill. I think every province should be represented on the commission so that we can call it a truly national commission or committee.
I am certainly not in favour of seeing this scheme promoted as a scheme for a national war memorial.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) is responsible for my participation in this debate. In his stimulating historical review he began with the city of Athens and wound up at the city of Ottawa. In the course of his tour he arrived at the great city of Galt, my native ctiy, and I feel compelled to participate in this debate to offer a word of correction of the historical reference made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to that lovely city. It is the city with which his tour should have begun.

Federal District Commission
commissions, but if we are to have at least fifteen members I think I would be safe in saying that this bill will not pass before Christmas if each province is not represented.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Maritime rights.


Mr. GRANT:: Maritime rights. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraithl got around it very nicely when he said that there would be a member representing each part of Canada. He would consider the maritime provinces as a part of Canada. I want the hon. member and others to remember that confederation was born if not conceived in Charlottetown, the capital of Prince Edward Island. God himself decorated that province and we do not have to decorate it ourselves. Therefore we are ready to bear our equal share of the decorating and beautification of Ottawa. I ask the government to reconsider this matter. Since there are to be so many members on the commission, each province should be represented.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Speaker, being a representative of the most beautiful part of the capital area, I think I should rise in support of this bill and, in doing so, I think I am reflecting the feelings of all hon. members when they seriously consider this bill. For many years the House of Commons has approved the principle of this bill, and the only thing now before us is to decide whether we shall go ahead and make this national area a real one. Credit should be given where credit is due. In addition to commending the work of the commission, I think great tribute should be paid to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). When he came to Ottawa from another part of Ontario he immediately took an interest in the development of the greater Ottawa area. If the Prime Minister should ever consider leaving active politics in the near future or at any time I hope he will consent to remain as adviser to or perhaps act as a director of the federal district commission.
At times the people of Ottawa do not like it to be said that Ottawa should be beautified, because they feel that this city has a natural beauty which cannot be improved by human hands. The people of Ottawa support this plan because they are citizens of this country. In paying tribute to this capital city, they are only doing what other parts of the dominion are doing. I wish we all had the same spirit in connection with this bill. A while ago the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) spoke in a prejudiced manner. He approached this subject as though the delay of the beautification of this area would bring about more social measures or do more socially for other
parts of Canada. He said also that this bill had not been timed properly. I think the only thing wrong with the timing is that it is a little late.
We should go ahead as quickly as possible with the beautification plan for this capital area. We in Ottawa would like to have the Greber plan made public as soon as possible. At times blame is placed on municipal, provincial or federal authorities because no one knows just where to place it, but you cannot really blame any authority until you know what the plan is going to be. There has been some delay on the part of certain municipalities in the district in doing this or that because they did not know just what to do. Now that the war is over, the Greber plan should be made public so that every one can cooperate and put it into effect.
For example, I am thinking of the approaches to Ottawa, such as the Montreal road. Representations have been made to me on many occasions by the citizens of Eastview. This road has been used more or less as a national highway, and the only reason the municipality has not done anything about it is that they are not sure whether it will be part of the plan for the capital area.
In conclusion, I can only say that it is always difficult for an Ottawa member to insist too much that he is attached to this plan, but as one who was born and raised here and whose soul is in this centre I trust that the members will not consider this question in any other way than as citizens of this country and will do all in their power to make the Ottawa area a beautiful capital and the soul of this country.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, until the last speaker had spoken, I had thought this was to be in the nature of a memorial to the men who served overseas, but now it seems that it is to be more or less a memorial to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I believe in the beautification of Ottawa, but I believe also that there should be some limit on the money spent.


Mr. McILRAITH:: The money is voted
in the ordinary way; you have every control over it.


Alan Cockeram: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) is quite interested because this is in his constituency and it is only natural that he should go out and bolster up the thing. It is true that money has been spent over a period of years and that parliament has voted money for the beautification of Ottawa, but now we are being asked to vote additional money for a
Federal District Commission

they live in Ottawa or not, whether they will ever see Ottawa or not, I cannot support this bill.


Mr. REID:: $96,000,000 for Saskatchewan.


Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill for a moment, I want it distinctly understood that I am thoroughly in favour of this beautification scheme in connection with the federal area. I am inclined to agree, however, with the view of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) that we should know where this money is to be spent. By that I mean we should know what part of this scheme is to be undertaken first. Before this bill was discussed, I think we should have had the report of the planner, Jacques Greber. I think we should know whether the plans call for the immediate removal of the cross-town railway tracks and the temporary buildings. We should know something of what is to be done during the next few years. Are they to improve the east and west blocks? Do they intend to relieve the traffic congestion on what is called hell's half-acre, Confederation square? Some mention of that was made to-night, and I believe the city of Ottawa was criticized for the present state of affairs there. My understanding is that the city of Ottawa had very little to do with the planning of Confederation square, so that we cannot blame the city for any traffic jams that occur. I believe it is a federal matter, which should be straightened out by the federal authorities.


Thomas Reid: It is bad, anyway.


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes, it is bad.


Alphonse Fournier: It could have been worse.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one feature which I do not approve, however; that is the development of this area as a memorial to those who served in the armed forces. I believe we should have an improved federal area; but, as another hon. member said this evening, let the various municipalities and provinces create their own memorials for those from their own districts. Then, if I might offer a suggestion to the commission, it would be that this red brick monstrosity directly in front of these buildings, the Victoria building, could very well be removed.


Alphonse Fournier: There is no relation at all between that building and this bill. The commission has nothing whatever to do with any of those buildings; that is the public works department.
I Mr. Argue.]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And would you please remove the Daly building?


Frank Exton Lennard: Finally, Mr. Speaker, since it is to be a memorial to our armed forces, how is it proposed to commemorate their accomplishments within the area? Will it take the form of another cenotaph or a hospital or what?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know. If they follow my advice the first building to be put up would be a building for the veterans.


Frank Exton Lennard: Finally, I suggest that after some of these other buildings which may be considered more important are erected, the matter of a national gallery be given early consideration.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I found it necessary, for my own comfort and that of other members of this house, to object to the noise which was heard around Confederation square. At that time I said I would be unable to support any bill designed to allocate any money to the federal district commission. I do not know that my threat really affected the government or that they were influenced by it at all, but I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) if he had anything to do with it, the municipal authorities and the street railway authorities for having rearranged their schedule of work so that hon. members are no longer disturbed between the hours of midnight and three o'clock in the morning. Therefore, since I am of a forgiving nature, I shall not be influenced at all by past events in coming to a decision as to whether or not I should support this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that we always give him a good hearing?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Mr. Speaker, as the senior member for perhaps the most beautiful province in Canada-and I am very modest in using the word "perhaps" -I should like to place on record one principle, one ideal; and I shall not delay the house if I am given a good hearing. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) have stated that there is a member from their province on this commission, and I thank them for coming out in the open and saying that there should be a member on the commission representing each province. I do not believe in large

Federal District Commission
was procured by the federal district commission at low cost. The actual work of the commission deserves the highest praise. They have performed their work efficiently and inexpensively to the taxpayers of Canada. They have one other duty which has not been emphasized' much to-night in the development of the area, and which is important, namely the coordination of the work as between- the different municipalities. The duties of the commission in coordinating the activities of the different municipalities in internal developments which are within the jurisdiction of the municipalities are important ones. They are not ones which involve any expenditure of public funds.
Perhaps I need not say any more to-night. I wish to thank hon. members at large for the expressions of opinion which we have had to-night. Generally speaking, I believe that the approach was fair, and I am particularly pleased to see hon. members from outlying areas view this bill for what it is, namely, an attempt to supplement and complete the legislation dealing with the development of our national capital.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: I find much in the bill with which I am in
agreement. I am sure I should like as much as any other member to see Ottawa beautified. However, the emphasis to-night seems to have been put on making it a capital city for tourists to see, especially tourists from other countries. Most of the people whom I represent will never have an opportunity of being in Ottawa because they will never have sufficient money to buy a railroad ticket to come this far; therefore, I think we should consider beautifying not only Ottawa but other parts of Canada as well.
I notice that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) made several references to beautifying Hull. I also noticed that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) emphasized that slum areas be cleared. When the government gets around to beautifying Ottawa I hope that it clears the slum areas in these two cities, which, in my opinion, will add to the beauty of this area more than any other single thing. If we want a beautiful nation for tourists from foreign countries to observe we might start by beautifying the slums in Halifax. We might try it in Montreal. Riding on the Canadian National railway trains from Montreal, one sees acres and acres, if I might put it in that way, of slum areas which are indeed a disgrace to this nation. So I say, when we are trying to beautify -Ottawa, let us also attempt to beautify other parts of Canada.
The single thing to which I most object is the timing of this bill. If I may use the argument that has -been used time and again by government members, an argument with which I am to some extent in agreement, we are indeed in an inflationary period. The government does not need to take my word for it. Donald Gordon says so, and anything Donald Gordon says just must be so. Here we are contemplating the expenditure after March 31 next of upward of $3,300,000. At the same time, when the workers of this country want an increase-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member is totally out of order. The bill before the house is to amend the Federal District Commission Act. It does not concern labour conditions at all, and I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was just saying that if $3,000,000 spent in the beautification of Ottawa is not inflationary then $3,000,000 spent in any other way, whether it be for the wages of labour or anything else, is not inflationary either. You just cannot have it both ways. I support this bill if it is implemented at a time when the inflationary period is over.


Thomas Reid: Would you mind telling us where the $3,000,000 comes in?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is a provision in the bill which says this amount may be spent after March 31 next. The hon. member can read the clause for himself.


Thomas Reid: That has been there for years, but they have never spent the $3,000,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all right; they are given authority to spend it. I shall support this bill when the old people of Canada are treated properly. I shall support this bill when the workers of Canada are given decent wages.


James Horace King: Order. I have not permitted that kind of debate, and I will not permit the hon. member to go farther. I would ask him to be kind enough to speak on the principle of the bill which is before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am attempting to keep within the confines of this bill, because when money is spent, no matter what it be spent for, it is not going to affect just the city of Ottawa. We all know that. It is going to affect the whole nation. Until I am convinced that something better is being done to improve the conditions of all people in Canada whether

Federal District Commission
national capital in a way that is worthy of the nation and fitting to the capital of the nation.
I had deliberately refrained from speaking in the earlier stages of the measure, and in fact I intended not to speak to-night, for the very reason that I wanted to have this measure approached rather as something having the approval of all parties in this house, and to have the measure visualised not as one brought forward by any party having a special interest in the matter or by any members from the particular area having such an interest.
I must say that I felt myself impelled to speak especially when I listened to two speeches from members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Perhaps it is putting it somewhat mildly if I content myself with saying that those speeches were distressing; distressing not because the hon. members oppose the bill; that, indeed, is their privilege; but distressing because of the tone of the speeches.
Very early in his speech the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) said that he spoke only for the members of his constiuency. He then continued to speak for some considerable time. The only comment one could make about the tone of his speech is that if it is read by any of the electors of Humbolt it will appeal only to their prejudices. I hope that he did not intend that. When he reads his speech I hope that he will see that that is so and that he will seek to correct it at the appropriate moment, as that can be its only effect. I should like to remind him that the citizens of Humboldt are Canadian citizens. They are interested in this country, vitally interested in it, in common with the citizens of all other constituencies. This is a measure having to do with the development of a national capital, their national capital, as well as the national capital of all other parts of the country. When he speaks to his electors, as he promised he would do, I hope that he will approach the subject in that light and that he will remember that hard fact, however much it might upset what might otherwise be an easy speech to make to his electors.
The timing of this bill is particularly appropriate. During the war years it was proper and necessary to lay aside energies which would be devoted to this subject and direct them into more appropriate lines. But in any event, as the result of some activities in which I may properly claim some considerable part along with others, a committee of the two houses of parliament was set up in 1944 to deal with the subject, not of the development of the national capital as such, but with the agreement between the corpora-

tion of the city of Ottawa and the dominion government. I should like publicly to acknowledge the good work done by the members of all parties on both sides of the house who sat on that committee. I am glad to see the realization of most of the recommendations of the committee and their development into actual legislation and the appropriate steps which are necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the committee.
To-night some reference has been made to the representations from other parts of the dominion. As a representative of a part of the city of Ottawa, I may say that I am wholly in accord with the sentiments expressed, and indeed I took my part, along with others, in suggesting that representation should be given to all parts of the country in order that the matter would be approached in a proper way and not in any election way. But I would point out to the members who have dealt with this subject and apparently share the views I hold on the matter, that they are not wholly accurate in reading the section of the bill in the way in which they do. In appointing the commissioners, the government may appoint thirteen from different parts of the country. Only two of the appointments are to be specific appointments from specific areas. Then there is a provision that five of the others shall come from the maritimes or the western provinces, Ontario and Quebec as the case may be. I would point out that there is nothing to prevent the government from appointing one member from each province, if the proper person is available, interested in the subject and prepared to give the time and energy which are required.
There is one other point I should like to emphasize. In the early speeches to-night a great deal of reference was made to the city of Ottawa as such, and the development of the city of Ottawa. That is not the correct view of this legislation. If hon. members will examine the subject more closely they will find that it deals with the development of the whole district, the capital area, and indeed the greater part of the area is outside the city of Ottawa. I hope that the mistake will not be made of viewing it solely as a city measure, because that is not supported by the facts.


John Thomas Hackett: Does it extend to Hull?
Mr. IMcILRAITH: Yes. A great part of the property owned1 by the federal district commission is considerably north of Hull, some ten miles north of Hull. It is fine park land in the Gatineau area, and incidentally

Federal District Commission
the terminus a little further out. I understand that no instructions have been given by the government to the federal commission to request a meeting of the railway companies looking toward this great improvement.
The union station should also be improved. That was recommended by the committee. So far, however, no steps have been taken in that direction.
When I last spoke I made reference to the beautiful tulips that were growing out here this spring, and since I made that speech I have received six or seven letters castigating me about the things I said about this gift from Holland. I am not taking back one word of what I said about the gift to Canada. I did say that these bulbs were some of the nicest I have ever seen, but I still remember that during the years of the war, when other countries were turning their grass lands and, indeed, all the land they had into land for the production of food, Holland was preserving these bulbs, and naturally they grew to a great size. When the war ended, the devastated countries around Holland were unable to send anything out, whereas Holland was in the right position to export bulbs, samples of which reached Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto.
I have always been curious to know why these three cities were chosen-Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. We did not expect any in British Columbia because we do grow beautiful bulbs out there. Our growers produce splendid bulbs. But in view of the fact that I have received seven' castigating letters, I repeat what I said on that occasion. It was a straight business deal on behalf of Holland and they made a pretty good job of it. I admired the bulbs, but from the advertising point of view it has done them more good and we in British Columbia will probably have a harder time in selling bulbs to the people around here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Except that ours
are better.


Thomas Reid: I am going to make a suggestion. I do not know under whose authority it would come, but I offer the suggestion in all seriousness. We are going to enlarge the personnel and take in all the provinces, and I hope we so enlarge it as to take in all three maritime provinces instead of having one representative. I suggest again that the provinces be asked through the provincial governments and their representatives to have plots of ground set aside on parliament hill, if that can be done, so that each province may there display its interest and demonstrate what can be and in fact is grown in the province represented in any particular plot. I know that many provinces may not wish to take advan-63260-2881
tage of that proposal; nevertheless, those who do wish to take advantage of a plot on parliament grounds, or who wish to take an avenue or a portion of an avenue for the planting of trees, should be given every encouragement to do so. Members from the various provinces would be watchdogs and would see that the trees were looked after, and the representatives of each province would take pride in what was being done in that regard. Each province so represented would take a greater interest in the national capital than would be the case if this suggestion were not carried out.
I am not going to delay the house any longer, I thought I would put on the record the recommendations of the committee and at the same time try to correct one or two statements that have been made, pointing out that the $300,000 given under this bill is not all for the beautification of Ottawa. As a matter of fact-and I say this in all sincerity-I do not think we are giving enough money. I make a further suggestion. Leading into Ottawa, the highways should be modernized by the federal authorities, because you cannot expect some little municipality two or three miles on the outskirts of Ottawa to bear the burden of the cost of a modern highway.
The approaches to a city have a wonderful effect on visitors who come in cars. We are living in the days of modernized vehicular traffic and we must have modernized highways. I went up the Gatineau two Sundays ago. What the great drawback is about visiting the 16,000-acre farm under the federal district commission is the lack of roads. I did not suffer greatly going over some of the rough corduroy gravel roads, but I said to the superintendent of the federal commission, Mr. Hay, " I doubt very much whether our United States visitors would ever come back to see the beautiful lakes in the Gatineau area after travelling over these corduroy roads." As everyone knows, the roads in the United States are splendid. They are very comfortable to travel on and motors are built especially for such splendid highways, but none of them will travel twice over roads such as I travelled on in going up the Gatineau two Sundays ago.
I am all in support of this measure, Mr. Speaker, and the passing of it.


George James McIlraith: As member for the greater part of the city of Ottawa and, indeed as member for the part of the city of Ottawa in which these parliament buildings are located, I particularly welcome this bill. I also welcome it because it represents one more step in the achievement of some ideas I have held and tried to assert at appropriate moments in the appropriate places with respect to the development of our

Federal District Commission
million from the people of Canada by way of subsidies, should now object to $300,000 being spent in the capital city. Perhaps it is because it is not for Saskatchewan, but for the Dominion of Canada. And might I remind the hon. member for Humboldt that on that committee was a member of his own party. The report iriade to the house in 1944 was unanimous, and the $300,000 which is proposed in this bill was the amount recommended in 1944 by that committee. I do not suppose that the people of Hum'boldt will hear about the $96,757,000 that has been given to the people of Saskatchewan by all the taxpayers of Canada. They will probably hear about some cement, and someone not sleeping, and the lack of this and the lack of something else.
However, I did not rise particularly to try to enlighten the people of Humboldt as to the actual expenditure of this money, but I think the record should be kept straight, that the money which is to be spent under this bill is not altogether for the beautification of Ottawa. If anyone would care to read the report he would find that over $55,000 is spent annually around the parliament buildings and other public buildings by the federal district commission, and I could give the items on which these expenditures are made. There is a water-sprinkling system which costs the city of Ottawa $23,500 annually; there is a lighting system for the various driveways which costs $5,000; there is also the collection of garbage and a scavenger service in respect to the various buildings, including the parliament buildings here; and there is the removal of snow and clearing of the walks around parliament hill which, as everyone knows, are kept fairly clean throughout the early part of the year when we are here. I think that in fairness those facts should be placed on record so that the matter may be put more clearly before the members of this house.
I want to make one comment regarding the proposal of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) that the commission should be enlarged to more than thirteen. With that I am in hearty accord, because the recommendation of the committee on page 172 of the report reads:
In order that such development may be coordinated in general with what has been already laid down, we suggest that the powers of the federal district commission he increased and its personnel be enlarged to include not only representation from the Ottawa area but from the people of Canada as a whole.
I cannot see how the people of Canada as a whole can be represented if you have [DOT]representation from seven or eight provinces and then appoint only one to represent the

three provinces of the maritimes; and I would suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is piloting the bill through, that representation be given to every one of the maritime provinces, in compliance with the report of the commission.
Mention has been made of the architect from France, Mr. Greber. I was on the committee, and' I will repeat what I said then when the federal commission came before that committee. One of the objections I had to Mr. Greber was this: France and Great Britain and the other countries of Europe are old countries. They have historic buildings dating back a thousand years and more, and the architecture which is suitable for those countries is not suitable for modern countries like Canada or the United States. Regarding Confederation square, I used to wonder as a boy about the sentence in the good old book which spoke of "the quick and the dead", but it was not until I tried to get around Confederation square that I realized that the "quick" is if you get across, and the "dead" if you don't, for you are no more, so that the scriptural reference to the quick and the dead1 is being fulfilled down on Confederation square.
To me it is most unfortunate that the parliament of Canada, in keeping company with the city of Ottawa, did not start earlier with their plans. They have developed Elgin street right up to the great war memorial. I am not a town planner, but I think everyone will agree with me that Metcalfe is the street that should have been widened, and it should have been widened up to the museum. It should have been made a wide and spacious street right from the parliament buildings down, and in the course of conversations with persons born in Ottawa, when I suggested this they have said to me, "Well, Mr. Reid, you don't know just how this council of ours works. Many of these things might have been done, but there was real estate to sell on Elgin and other streets and so we were not too keen about making this the capital." But even at this late date the beautification of Ottawa, and the undertaking to make it the real capital city of Canada, of which everyone could be proud, should be further considered, and to this end we should widen Metcalfe street from the front gate of parliament straight to the museum. That, I think, would be a far better approach to the parliament buildings. It would be better than further developments of Elgin street.
The committee in their report made some recommendations which have not yet been dealt with by the government, and one of them was to have the railroads coming into Ottawa routed under a subway, or in some way have

Federal District Commission
of the work they are doing, and I think it is up to the people of this country to see that when visitors come here they will be able to see not only what is beautiful on this side of the river but also to enjoy the same thing on the other side of the river. We speak of good relations between the provinces and of unity. Would that not be a nice way to bring about good relations and unity among our peoples? On this side of the river the people are English-speaking; on the other side they are French-speaking. Let us develop the capital district on both sides of the Ottawa river. I live on the other side, but I am closer to the parliament buildings than a good many people here in Ottawa. When the interprovincial bridge is open it takes me only five minutes to come here from my home.
The purpose of this bill is not the expenditure of money for just to-day or to-morrow, but to plan for the future and to have a capital which will be the pride of the Canadian people. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) has the right idea. He does not think of this as a bill applying only to the city of Ottawa. He knows it applies to the whole federal district. We intend to try to cooperate with the different municipalities in the planning of their own developments, so that, as the years go by, people will like to come, not only to the city of Ottawa and the county of Carleton, but also to the other side, to the city and district of Hull.
Mention was made of Mr. Greber and the progress of his plans. Mr. Greber is the only Frenchman on that committee which is devising a master plan for the national capital. The committee has a staff of thirteen people who are working in Ottawa on this plan, and I understand that in six or seven months Mr. Greber will be ready to make his report. I am not going to discuss his qualifications, but I believe he is well qualified. Perhaps somebody else believes that others would be better qualified. That is a matter of opinion, But I think Mr. Greber will do quite a good job.
As to the bridges mentioned, we know we need bridges; but before building them so far away from the capital city, I think we should try to build some reasonably satisfactory bridge right in the centre of the city or in close vicinity to it, and that would be, I think, one of the means of developing also the other side of the river.
All hon. members know the men on the federal district commission, especially Mr. Bronson. We have from my own city Mr. Ste. Marie, K.C., who has been on the federal district commission since 1927. He has devoted his time and energies and talents in cooperat-63260-288
ing with the other members to maintain and develop this capital city of ours. I believe that these gentlemen deserve gratitude for the work they have been doing, and I hope that when this new commission is set on foot it will be deemed fitting to keep them as members to continue the good work they have been doing.
I listened to the statement of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) to the effect that the city of Toronto was a very fine city, though it had not been built with federal government money. I recognize that. In 1867 no question had arisen of having a capital city or federal district commission. We came into Bytown, Ottawa, and development proceeded in cooperation with the municipality. In other cities administration of streets and civic services is carried on by the municipal governments, and we do not want to invade their domain or take away their civic autonomy; we want to cooperate with them to try to develop this city. If Ottawa had not been the capital city of Canada, for all we know to the contrary it might have been a large industrial centre, because of its water power and other natural resources in the immediately surrounding district. I believe that there is understanding between the municipal and federal authorities, and that, with the passing of this bill, as the years go by we shall see this city expand and develop and become one of the finest of capital cities.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee in 1944 I should like to join in the debate which has taken place this evening. It seems strange that so far in the debate, of all who have taken part, the three members from British Columbia have been the greatest supporters of the bill and the beautifying of this federal capital. Surely every one of us can and should take pride in our capital city.
I know that those who visit Washington usually come back full of enthusiasm, and while I realize that Canada, with twelve million people, cannot compete with the great country to the south of us, nevertheless we can have a capital which, will be the envy of many other lands. As a matter of fact we have here in Ottawa a great chance to make a splendid capital, for it is better in location even than Washington.
I was suprised to hear the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) coming out against the appropriation for the beautifying of the capital city. During the recess I took time to hunt up some facts, and I am just going to remind him that it seems strange that a province, which in six years got over $96
1EVI3ED EDITION

Federal District Commission
exceedingly able architects of our own in Canada. Why we should go outside of Canada and get somebody else to come in here and do this job is beyond my comprehension.
So far as the bill itself is concerned, I think it is a good thing to have a federal district, but we should go slow in this matter in the next two or three years and remember that we are spending the taxpayers' money.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in this bill because I happen to represent the riding right across the river, which has a representative on the federal district commission. I have listened attentively to what has been said up until now. On the second reading we are to decide on the principle of the bill. That is not difficult to do because that principle has been agreed upon for the last fifty years. If I remember aright, the first Ottawa improvement commission was created by statute in the year 1899. There w'ere modifications made under every government, and now this bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act which dates from 1927. The object is to try to plan a capital of which Canadians will be proud.
This bill is based on the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which was set up in 1944. This committee, chosen from both houses of parliament, was set up to try to find a better plan for the capital and to devise plans which would be executed by governments in the future.
The first recommendation of that committee was to enlarge the federal district commission from ten to fifteen members, and if hon. members will read the bill they will see that that is what the bill proposes, to meet the wishes of the joint committee set up in 1944.
Even the title of this bill is another of the joint committee's recommendations. Instead of calling it the federal district commission, the committee favoured the title of national capital district commission. Those two recommendations of the committee are implemented in this bill.
Then there follows a clause by which the commission and the operation of this bill will come under the president of the privy council instead of under the Minister of Finance. I think we can all agree on that. So that there should be no difficulty in our agreeing upon the enlargement of the commission, the new name of the commission, and the minister who will have charge of the act.

There are other sections of the bill which deal with expenditures. It is proposed to increase from $200,000 to $300,000, an increase of $100,000 a year, the annual grant to the commission for the maintenance of the grounds belonging to the federal district commission on both sides of the river. That is understandable because, since the act was passed in 1927, the government has acquired a good many other properties and put up many buildings and even extended the government driveways.
Another section provides for the expenditure of $3,000,000 to be spent as the years go by, over, I think, the next ten or fifteen years. Parliament in 1927 voted the sum of $2,000,000 for the commission to acquire property and develop parks, gardens, driveways, roadways and sidewalks. The commission was authorized to spend the $2,000,000 at the rate of $200,000 a year during ten years. That amount has been completely expended. During the war the government did not see its way clear to voting any further amount for that purpose. Now this additional sum of $3,000,000 is for the enlargement of the plan during the next ten years.
For many years in this house I have listened to members on both sides telling us what we should do in the city of Ottawa. Everybody wants to have a national capital which they would be proud to show to visitors and to speak about. If you travel in other countries you will notice how proud the people are to show you their capital city, their public buildings and parks, and the souvenirs of their past history. In this country we are trying to build up the same mentality. The only difference I see is that, as regards Canada's national capital, we have flowing between Ottawa and the city on the other side one of the most beautiful rivers we have in Canada. On one side of the river you find sumptuous buildings, splendid driveways and parks. If you look on the other side of the river you will find the industrial part of this district. That dates back to a long time ago. The city of Hull was built as an industrial city and it has developed the natural resources that were close to that city at that time. But I believe that now, in view of the development of the city on this side of the river, it is time to develop the other side of the Ottawa river. Why should we deprive the Canadian people of the beauties we have on the other side of the river? Why should we develop driveways and parks and put up fine buildings just on one side of the river and ignore the other side? I have heard a member on the other side of the house speak of the slums across the river. They are poor people but proud

Federal District. Commission
being held; it may be New York, the seat of the UNO and UNRRA. We do not know what capital we have. Ottawa is not definitely our capital, and it will not be if we abandon any part of our sovereignty to the big powers. If that is done, then the capital that we shall have to improve and beautify will be Chungking, China; London, England; Washington, D.C.; Paris, France, and Moscow, Russia. If the big five are to control our destinies Ottawa will not exist any longer as the capital city. Since this bill proposes the beautification of the capital city of Canada, there is still a little bit of hope for the future.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the few words that were said by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). He is one of our real highland Scotsmen and we all know how sentimental they are. I agree with him that Canada has really a wonderful history, but it is a pity that many of our people do not understand our background. It is a pity that people in one part of the country do not understand the people in other parts.
There is no doubt that Ottawa is a beautiful city. Whoever was responsible for putting this House of Commons in the place it is deserves a great deal of credit. The House of Commons, the east block, the west block and many of our buildings are really beautiful. I would rather bring about a better understanding of our history by the people of Canada than spend a lot of money in beautifying the capital. Toronto is a beautiful city, but the citizens of Toronto made it beautiful, not the Ontario government. We are proud that Toronto is the capital of the province of Ontario, but the provincial government have not spent a lot of money in making Toronto beautiful.
What we need is a unified history of Canada that would be acceptable to everyone. We talk about a war memorial, but if we could publish such a history and have it understood by all the people it would be the greatest war memorial we could possibly have. It do not think this is the time to talk about spending a lot of money. It is all very well to get prepared for these things. Mr. Bronson, whom I know, has done a wonderful job with the federal district commission and we are all indebted to him, but he is still a young man and will have lots of opportunities in the future.
Being the legislative centre of Canada means that Ottawa has many advantages. That brings many people to the city and they spend their money. I do not think we should be asked to do too much for the city
of Ottawa. I believe in the federal district commission and I believe we want to have a beautiful capital some of these days. As far as a war memorial is concerned, we should not forget that the war is just over and there are many things that have to be done. We should think this thing over for a while to see whether we want to carry this out as a war memorial or whether we would rather do something else. Ottawa is only a small city in comparison with other cities in the country. As I say, I think we want a good capital; we want to have a lovely place.
What we have to do is to cut our coats according to our cloth. We have a war to pay for. It is all very well to say that it is only going to cost us $223,000 more this year, but $223,000 is a lot of money. This is not the time to be increasing expenditures at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. That is a fact that has to be taken into consideration. I find that under this bill the federal district commission will have the right to borrow $3,000,000 or to obtain $3,000,000 from the consolidated revenue fund. I think that should be thought over. Let us get settled down after this war and think about expenditures of one kind and another, and the taxpayer. The government has been so used to thinking of hundreds of millions of dollars that it does not think about hundreds of thousands of dollars any more. If the commission borrows money the government will guarantee the bonds and pay the interest. It may be a good project, I do not know. I think this matter should be carefully considered before we go on spending the taxpayers' money.
There is just one other factor about this matter. An architect has been brought here from Paris, France. He may 'be the finest town planner in the world, but the fact is that Canada has many fine architects and town planners. Many of these men have studied overseas in Paris and other places on the continent. A great Canadian architect, Mr. Pearson, built this building, and it is a great tribute to his ability. Why should we go outside the country, why should we import someone from some other country who is not acquainted with Canadian culture? We should try to develop our Canadian art. We have our French-Canadian songs and our French-Canadian music and we are trying to get English-Canadian music and songs through Sir Ernest MacMillan. We have our own artists whose works are being shown all over the world at the present time. We have our schools of architecture; our universities are training men to be architects, and we have
Federal District Commission

still, in the fields and woods surrounding it, the loud and screaming colours of a vulgar commercialism.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the speeches which have been delivered so far during this debate, though they have been contradictory. One can take the beautification scheme for Ottawa for granted, but beautification is a relative thing. There are parts of Ottawa which have been left untouched, where people live in dwellings which certainly are not the pride of the capital city of a great country. The idea was advanced that Ottawa should be the Washington of the north. I want the capital city of Canada to have personal distinction, not to be a pocket edition of the capital city* of any other country. I do not personally know the planner who has been chosen, but I presume he is an able man; and the fact that he comes from another country should not be considered as an objection, provided that be is well qualified for what he is going to do.
Members of parliament who spend six months a year here in Ottawa should not be considered as strangers in the city. Something has been suggested by one hon. gentleman concerning the offices of the members. Such a suggestion might be appropriate, but when we want to come here with our families the difficulty is that it is impossible to get an apartment because of the duration of the session. It seems to me that members of parliament should be treated as citizens of Ottawa, because we spend most of the year here-


Mr. BURTON:: And most of our money.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and we should have some facilities for securing proper housing in this city. Something else has been mentioned to me; I am laying my grievances before the Chair. I am told it is impossible to park a car in this part of the city, not only on parliament hill but in this vicinity. This situation should be improved, and it surely is possible to do that in some way.
In my humble view the first thing to do to improve the city of Ottawa, if something is to be done by the government, is to build a fireproof library. The other day I had the support of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for this suggestion, but he gave me more than his support; he suggested a cultural centre for Ottawa. I am not at all interested in that cultural centre, at least for the time being, but here in the library of parliament we have the most precious collection of books, newspapers and historic documents in this country; and it

should be protected against fire. By doing this, we shall give the Canadian people an opportunity to learn the history of Canada just as well as it has been learned by the hon. members who have spoken in this debate.
It is pitiful to see some of the homes on both sides of the river, in lower town as well as in the western part of the city of Ottawa. It makes such a difference when one comes to the centre of the city from those sections, and something should be done for those people. We have a great many office buildings that were fully occupied during the war. They are not beautiful; but the roofs do not seem to leak; the walls seem to protect those within, from the cold and excessive heat. I wonder why some of those buildings are not divided into apartments to give shelter to those families who are living in shacks and slums.
This is not what one might call a speech, Mr. Speaker; it is just a collection of observations I have made lately, and suggestions that have been made in my presence. Messengers are provided for the service of members of the House of Commons. They are most obliging and some of them have cars which they are always ready to use to go on errands for the members. One of them told me-and I have been told this by others-that it takes him an hour and a half to park a car on parliament hill. There are still some places left, and these messengers who are at the disposal of members and who have cars that they are ready to use to go to the printing bureau or other places some distance from the House of Commons should be able to park their cars in some secluded area. It would not need to be very large, but they should have their own places in which to park their cars on parliament hill. I hope, if other hon. members have suggestions to make, they will be taken into consideration by the proper authorities
Before concluding, I should like to congratulate both members for Ottawa and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), Minister of Public Works, upon the interest they have taken in improving some of the ugly areas that have existed previously in this city. In carding out this work, I hope the government will not try to achieve too much grandeur. Some consideration should be given to comfort. We should not to be too boastful because Canada may not really be considered as an autonomous country at the present time. Some people are Canadians in name and they believe very strongly in it.
If we are going to improve the capital city of Canada we should not try to do too much. The capital city of the commonwealth may i\e Paris, where the peace conference is now

Federal District Commission
his party in this regard, who once went so far as to advocate a building for ballet dances and a national theatre of arte and sciences and so forth. If the hon. member will look up the record he will realize that his leader had a vision which the hon. member for Humboldt negated here to-night.
I rose to try to induce hon. members to look upon this not as a local area. I resent anybody calling it the city of Ottawa project, because I represent the best part of the Dominion of Canada, the area surrounding Ottawa. In Carleton county we do not need it as Ottawa does, but we can use it better than Ottawa can.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I
say at the outset that I am not opposed to the beautification of Ottawa, provided that it does not take too great a sum of money. It has been an inspiration to me to-night to listen to the poetic speech of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and the less pcetical but more witty speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). The Minister of Veterans Affairs even took us back to Greece and Rome, and with his permission I should like to follow him for the time being to those far distant places and to remind him that while the civilization of Athens, to which, he referred, was probably an ideal one for some people, I cannot forget that it was built upon a class society. I point out to him that the fine things which he described were enjoyed by only one class of people, and that the civilization there was built by slaves, as were the buildings. I would also remind him that the civilization of Greece, boasting as it did these marvellous buildings, the Acropolis, the Stadia, was like Rome with its Coliseum, based upon the slave market, and that both these nations neglected their people. Their decay and fall are matters of history.
I might also remind the scholarly minister that if he knows his Horace-and I presume he does-he will recall that Horace had an idea of a better type of monument which might well be built by men.


William Irvine: Probably he lost his Horace.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not think great buildings will ever take the place of that particular type of "monumentum." The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton), who has been much maligned here to-night for his advocacy of a bath in Moose Jaw, did say something with which I heartily agree. He said, "Let us beautify the whole countryside." With that in mind, I wish to say something here because I think I should be out of order on any of the
items something which I have wanted to say in, a public place for a long time, and I know of no more public place than this. He said, "Let us beautify the whole countryside." I should like to put it in reverse and say, let us cease to make it ugly. Some hon. members will have suspected already to what I refer. I want to speak of beautification and commercial signs, if I may mention the two things in the same breath. On coming to Ottawa I was interested, of course, in the beautification scheme for our national capital. I live down off the foot of Bank street, if that is the right way to describe it, and one day while going down there I saw some men just at this side of the railway subway tearing down an ugly clay bank. I thought to myself, "Here is some of the beautification of which I have heard; no doubt they are going to level this place up and plant g-rass and trees." Two, or three days later, enough lumber, zinc and wire were brought there to make the heart of War Assets Corporation shudder, and some of these ugly signs were erected. I am quite sure they took enough lumber and other material to build, if not a cottage, at least a decent summer shelter.
On looking around the district, however, I realize that this particular sign is not too incongruous there after all. The shacks; the juke joints advertising soft drinks, the little restaurants with their loud and lurid signs advertising cigarettes of various kinds which will cure your sore throat-no, they do not look so bad in the city, where men generally have vitiated the scenery and the landscape. Now they are trying to bring nature back into the city by planting trees and grass and flowers. No; it is out in the open country, in the fields and the woods and upon the roadsides that these atrocities of signs are really incongruous. One gets outside the city and begins, shall I say, to be soothed by the soft green of the fields or the grey of the clouds; then he runs into a great sign, perhaps on the side of a hill near a little lake. Hon. members know the type of sign I mean, and it brings a jarring note into the whole landscape. Or you see the whole side of a barn-and I am astounded that any farmer would permit his barn to be used for this purpose-covered with a huge advertisement telling you to chew somebody's tobacco.
I merely wanted to say that in any beautification scheme for Ottawa-and I understand it is to extend some considerable distance beyond the city-I hope all this will be remembered. I would not vote a five-cent piece, if I may use that historic phrase, for the beautification scheme of any city that would allow along the highways contiguous to it, and, worse
Federal District Commission

Canada, has done a work that will be a monument many centuries after he has passed away, one that will be appreciated by the people throughout Canada. I repeat, the Canadian people owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Bronson in particular.
I think there is something to be said in support of the hon. member for Fraser Valley in the suggestion that each province should have a representative on the commission, because each province should be entitled to have its aims, ambitions, industries and undertakings demonstrated within the federal area.
I do not believe that the phrase "beautifying the city of Ottawa" correctly expresses the views of those who support this bill. In my opinion it is the exemplification of Canada rather than the beautification of a city that we are interested in. I say, therefore, to those who, dealing with federal district relations, and others who have studied the history of the movement to create around Ottawa a federal area, have said that a great deal has been put into it, that a great deal more is necessary.
We must bear in mind that now, and for a considerable length of time, the government of the day has engaged one Jacques Greber, a town planning expert from Paris, France, to prepare a plan for the federal area. I would have been happy to see the government give to the house a great deal of information on the progress which he has made. I believe the house is entitled to much more information than we have had on the progress which Mr. Greber is making on his plans for this area. I do not think it is sufficient to have a town planning expert, good or otherwise as he may be, work for the length of time that Mr. Greber has been working and then ask parliament to apportion money for the expense of developing a federal district, without having seen some results of his work.
Within Ottawa, particularly these days, work for the sake of employment is not necessary. For that reason the house should be acquainted with the definite and concrete proposals which the government has to offer in the immediate future so far as a federal area is concerned. When the committee sat a year or a year and a half ago we made concrete proposals. So far as the expansion of the committee and the nationalization of the committee are concerned the recommendations are pretty well incorporated in the bill; but the development of Ottawa, from a practical point of view, has not been incorporated nor have we had information on it. As an example, in Ottawa we have the crosstown tracks. As a matter of progress, as a matter of strict economy, the removal of the 
cross-town tracks and the re-routing of the railways in Ottawa should be the first consideration, so that municipal, provincial and dominion enterprise could work together in the federal scheme.
I believe the federal area scheme contemplates building certain highways. Land on both banks of the Rideau and Ottawa rivers has been set aside. Much of the congestion in Ottawa complained about by nearly every visitor to Ottawa, be it member of parliament, tourist, commercial traveller or business man, is created by the railways, the defective transportation highways and the difficulties of traffic within Ottawa. In asking parliament to apportion money, the government should have some definite proposals to place before the people on this particular point.
I noticed in last night's paper that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) had made some comments indicating that in the immediate future he might commence the building of a bridge across the Ottawa river some ninety or one hundred miles northwest of Ottawa. Although that bridge is needed to accommodate Pembroke, I believe it should be built within the capital area, so that if both sides of the Ottawa river are to form a federal district there will be driveways along the scenic Ottawa river with a crossing within the federal area at some place within the county that I have the honour to represent. I would suggest that it be some forty or fifty miles north of here. If that were done I would not be bothered incessantly by members asking me where they could go for a drive and get back safely. I would just tell them to follow the federal area.
I believe that we should look upon this as a matter of national pride, as a demonstration. plot of national industries, national cultures and national ambitions. I do not think any Canadian will object to a true depicting of the Canadian spirit right in the federal area. I do not think the hon. member for Humboldt by any means had the vision which should be possessed by anyone who would discuss the bill before the house at this time. If he feels that the face of Ottawa needs uplifting I would tell him that the face of Canada needs uplifting and this is the place to do it. I do not think his worthy leader will agree with the comments that he made this afternoon and to-night, because on several occasions I have seen the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rise in his place and give ample support to a move to establish a real federal area. May I ask the hon. member to look up Hansard and see the record of the leader of

Federal District Commission
sary to leave the entire planning of the capital of Canada to a gentleman from Paris, I do not care who he is or what he is. Particularly do I say this when I think of anyone who is privileged-perhaps I should say anyone who has the misfortune-to drive a car through the streets of Ottawa to the place called Confederation square when one never knows whether he is going to be killed in turning a corner. There are streetcars going both ways and automobiles adding to the traffic. If my hon. friends who take exception to this statement with regard to Confederation square will come to Vancouver they will see what traffic control is like.


George James McIlraith: May I point out to my hon. friend that the plan of the gentleman in question was not followed in Confederation square.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to hear that. That is one more reason why I suggest that we should have a representative from each province, because it must have been planned by the citizens of Ottawa themselves. I may tell the government that I intend to move an amendment to this section, which will provide each province with a representative on the commission. There is another section that I am not satisfied with, and if I am wrong I can be corrected. I refer to section 17.


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that on second reading of the bill he cannot discuss individual clauses. He should confine himself to the principle.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As the hon. member for Temiscouata would say, that is just what I am doing, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking entirely on the principle of the bill and I think the principle is wrong. As I understand it, there is no accounting for expenditures. As I understand the principle, a report is to be brought in so many days after parliament meets, but it is not provided that all expenditures shall come before this parliament, and that, in my opinion, is a principle that should not be lost sight of. After all, parliament is, or it should be, supreme in the expenditure of every dollar of the Canadian public's money.
I do not think I will take up any more of your time now, Mr. Speaker, but I intend to move the amendment which I have suggested, so that every province shall be represented on the commission and every dollar of expenditure be accounted for to parliament.


George Russell Boucher: Like the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) at the outset of his remarks,
I assure the house that I intend to support the principle of the bill; but unlike that hon. gentleman, in his concluding observations, I intend to remain consistent with the statement I have made.
May I first say that in discussing this bill we should cast our minds to the real intent of it and not to the intent as indicated by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton), who attempted to compare Ottawa with the city of Moose Jaw, when he said that Ottawa needed a face-lifting while Moose Jaw needed a bath. I believe that was the sum total of the comparison he made in that respect.
It strikes me that some ambiguity is created by the very nomenclature of the act in calling it a Federal District Commission Act. What is really meant, I believe-and that would be the proper nomenclature-is a federal area act; because, when speaking of a federal district or a federal area, as I believe it should be called, we are not speaking of the city of Ottawa and the surrounding country, but of the capital of the nation, of which we should be proud. We are speaking of an attempt on behalf of all Canadians, who are proud of this country, to exemplify in their federal area and its environs, the capital city of the dominion, the aims, ambitions, industries, hopes and aspirations of Canadians.
Therefore, as we approach any discussion of a bill of this kind we should see in it an endeavour to establish in the capital and in the neighbourhood of the capital of Canada an area that exemplifies Canadian life in all its aspects. I suggest that we discuss it as an area rather than as a district. In my opinion "federal district" is itself a misnomer, because I do not believe that the people of Canada generally, certainly not the people within the area, want to see an area set aside, similar to the capital area in Washington, as something to be run by commission government, where local autonomy, municipal enterprise and selfgovernment within the area will be placed in the hands of a federal district commission. I believe that we should retain our municipal institutions, and our provincial authorities within the area must have their scope as well.
When, therefore, I come to the section providing for an increase in the membership of the commission to fifteen, I see something of much wider national aspect, in that body of men charged with the responsibility of exemplifying Canadian life. I think I should pause here and express in this house the gratitude of the people of Ottawa and of Canada as well, I believe, to Mr. Fred Bronson, the present chairman of the federal district commission, who, with his interest, energy and all the efforts he has made on behalf of the capital of

Federal District Commission
have to work for a living and at one time shoveled cement, and I can tell him that you do not use old torn-up cement to build a school.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How do you know?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I listened to the hon. member speak for thirty minutes about nothing; now let me talk for ten minutes about something. As a matter of fact, I regret that the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) has- unfortunately in so far as his party is concerned-been called away to another political convention. They have one only about every two months.


Mr. McKAY:: When did you have one last?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you have one?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why don't we have another one? Because we have the privilege of having the only leader in the British empire who has survived as leader of his party for twenty years. That is nice going. I have a great deal of admiration for the C.C.F. a lot of the time, when they do not waste time in talking about something which happened twenty years ago when a bill like this one is being considered.
There is one thing about this bill which I do not approve at all. First, let me say that I think the bill should be considered entirely on its merits; that is, as a measure for the beautification and improvement of the capital of our country, not as a war memorial. I do not think there should be any camouflage _ about it at all. Speaking on behalf of a farmer riding in the province of British Columbia, I can say that we are willing to pay our share to improve our capital, the capital of Canada, but we do not want the scheme camouflaged under the name of a war memorial. We in the Fraser valley want our own war memorial in our own district to the men who went from our own district.
There is another thing to which I want to take exception in this bill, and I intend to move an amendment, not talk about tearing up a bag of cement. Probably I shall be called out of order, but I do not mind that; I have been called out of order so often. I think it is unfair to the people of Canada, who are expected to pay for these improvements, to limit the representation. In all parties in this house-I repeat that-in all parties in this house are men who have had experience of serving on municipal or city councils in all parts of Canada. In every political party represented in this house there are men who have had experience in the promotion of parks and other improvements. For instance, in our

own province-and I think even the Saskatchewan members will give us credit for having the most beautiful parks in Canada-we have men of all political parties who have had experience in connection with our parks. So that I do not think it is fair to the taxpayers of Canada to limit the representation. As at present, one member is from British Columbia, one from the prairie provinces and one from the maritimes. I insist that every province is entitled to have a member on that commission.
When I first came to this house we voted, I think, an annual grant of $100,000 to Ottawa. At that time I was sitting over in the opposite corner; the people of Canada were a little wiser then, so that some Liberals had to be accommodated, Mr. Speaker, on your left. We over there objected to this expenditure of $100,000 for Ottawa. However, I had the privilege of being a guest in the city of Washington, the capital of the United States, and I changed my opinion after visiting that city. We cannot equal Washington; we have not the wealth to do so; but we can do much to improve our capital. It is the capital of Canada; not the capital of Ontario, but the capital of Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian and I intend to continue to be proud of Canada, in spite of all these bills to change the names of this, that and the other thing. I remember a poem-it is the only poem I remember-which I learned when I used to trudge as a barefoot boy around Matsqui: Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd As home his footsteps he hath turn'd From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well; For him no minstrel raptures swell.
I am proud of being a Canadian, and the people of my riding share that pride and are quite willing to contribute to the improvement of our capital. But I wish to warn the government that we are not prepared to have one dollar of our money used for the purpose of buying out this man Weston, or E. B. Eddy or any other concern. Make no mistake about that. We wish to beautify Ottawa and improve the capital city and we will see that a proper job is done, but we do not want to have any unfair expenditure made in purchasing these different properties. Above all-and here I may be treading on somebody's toes-we in the Fraser valley at any rate cannot see why it is necessary to leave the entire planning of the capital of our country, Canada, to someone in another country. I hope I am not hurting the feelings of anyone who may be of French descent; but I repeat, we cannot see why it is neces-

Federal District Commission
should be cleaned out from top to bottom and modernized. When you think of the important offices that are housed in that building and the state of those offices and of the building itself, to talk about beautifying the city and leaving that building in its present state is absolutely ridiculous.
Furthermore, if the government is prepared to spend any more money-nobody knows how many millions of dollars-in beautifying Ottawa it should also make arrangements to give assistance to the various provinces so that they can carry on a scheme, not only of beautification, but one that will be of benefit to the people of those provinces. Until the government is prepared to make some worth-while changes in the bill I am opposed to the principle of it.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think the house is fairly well aware that I rarely intervene in debate, but I must repudiate at once, with all the strength at my command, the tone and tenor of the ideas to which the house has just listened from the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton). He referred to the treatment of veterans in a debate that should deal entirely with the beautification of the area surrounding the capital city of our dominion. Yesterday this house voted generously some $800,000,000 for the welfare of the veterans of Canada, and it comes with bad grace from any hon. gentleman to say that this parliament is spending undue amounts of money on the district of Ottawa when this house and parliament-not the government, for I am not taking credit to the government for it-voted yesterday and the day before a contingent of $1,500,000,000 for the welfare of the veterans of the Dominion of Canada.
I should like to say a word about this bill dealing with the national capital and district. I am probably the farthest away from the capital city of any member of the house except the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). Hon. members are students of history. There are two great features and factors in this situation. The one is immediate, surrounding the capital city of Canada; the other one goes right to the soul and spirit and history of this dominion. If you study nations and their histories, think of the glory that was Athens in the days of Pericles; think of the grandeur that was Rome before the tyrants came; reflect on the beauties of Prague and Budapest; think of Paris, the most beautiful capital in Europe; of London, the most beautiful capital in the world; and
we of Canada should be proud to have here in Ottawa, as our capital, the finest city in the world.
When I think of the history of that beautiful province, Prince Edward Island; when I recall the story of the United Empire Loyalists in New Brunswick; when I think of the baronets of Nova Scotia and the Hector in 1773; when I think of Jacques Cartier coming to Quebec from St. Malo in 1534 and the wonderful crowd of missionaries who penetrated that province during the next hundred and fifty years, the settlements and the government which give us to-day in Canada the house in which to-day we dwell; when I think of the settlement that John Galt effected in Guelph and Goderich in Ontario; when I think of the Selkirk settlers who came to Manitoba in 1812; of Samuel Hearne and Alexander Mackenzie going through to the prairies, and Mackenzie's voyage in 1789, the year of the storming of the Bastille in France; when I think of Douglas and Fraser and the other great explorers who gave us the beginnings of British Columbia, I come back to this capital, built upon this bastion beside the grand confluence of our rivers, the most beautiful city, I think, in all the world; and I say to you that we should endow and enrich this city and its environment for all the people of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) is going to follow and support me,
I come from the province of British Columbia, but I shall not go into history as my good colleague has done. One thing which disappointed me in listening to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) speaking of these people, Mackenzie and the rest, who came from different places, was that he never said a word about Cruickshank coming from the Fraser valley.
I have listened to-day and for the last two days to the Toronto stock exchange. Then I listened to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) talking for an hour about something that had nothing to do with this bill. So that I think the house can bear with me, Mr. Speaker, through you, when I talk about this bill. At least, I am going to say a few words about it. I may mention the Fraser Valley and include a few words about British Columbia in the course of the discussion. But certainly I am not going to talk about one bag of cement just because my good friend the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) could not sleep. It is a ridiculous idea that one bag of cement has anything to do with tearing up a street here. I happen to
Federal District Commission

was destroyed by fire. The trustees of that district have wired me on a number of occasions asking me to intercede with the Minister of Reconstruction and his parliamentary assistant because they were unable to obtain a bag of cement within a hundred mile radius of the school. I did so and was told that the trustees should keep on searching. I want to tell the government that if this bill carries I shall have to tell those school trustees when I get back home that the federal district commission was using air drills on the streets of Ottawa, and incidentally disturbing the sleep of the hon. member for Nanaimo, to tear up good cement and use it to cover up some of their unsightly dumps in different parts of this city. And to the children who will not have a school to attend I shall have to say-


Frank Exton Lennard: If the hon. member will permit a question, did the drills not disturb his sleep also?


Joseph William Burton: My conscience is too good to be disturbed at night by a noise like that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will permit another question, does he not know that that work was not something that was done under the federal district commission at all, but was being done by the Ottawa Electric Railway company which operates the street railway in the city of Ottawa?


Joseph William Burton: At any rate the impression was conveyed at the time that it was part of the work of the federal district commission. But I accept the minister's explanation. The point I want to get across is this, that good cement was torn up and carted away, while people in my constituency cannot get cement to rebuild a school which was destroyed by fire. I shall have to tell those school children: Never mind, you will have a longer vacation; our government is doing everything possible to beautify Ottawa. Above all, I shall have to tell them that there is one way, and possibly only one way, in which the government can silence the members of the opposition-
Mr. PEARIvES: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have not been silenced.


Joseph William Burton: I am happy to see that the hon. member for Nanaimo has sufficiently recovered to make good the promise he made when he said that we were going to have a showdown before we voted any more money for the beautification of Ottawa.
The town of Humboldt needs water; Moose Jaw, Regina, Weyburn and other cities in Saskatchewan need water. But if this bill goes through, I shall have to tell the people 
back home: Go take a bath in the dust bowl because your government is busy beautifying Ottawa.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought you had a progressive C.C.F. government out in Saskatchewan.


Joseph William Burton: Let me tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs that if his government showed half as much action in twenty years as the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan has done in two years I should not have much to complain about.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But we shall be here for twenty years, and they will not be there long.


Joseph William Burton: I have always attempted to make it a practice, when I am opposed to the principle of a bill, to offer something constructive in place of it, and I should like, before I conclude, to make a few suggestions to the government as to what, in my opinion, could be done and would be acceptable.
First of all, I would suggest that the dual control which apparently we have in this area should be ended. On the one hand, there is tlie federal district commission looking after some of the streets and sidewalks; on the other, the civic authorities have other things to take care of, and there seems to be constant confusion over jurisdiction and as to who shall do a particular work. We should set aside an area here which would be recognized as a federal district for which the federal district commission would be entirely responsible.
There is in this bill a principle which I think is wrong. It provides that different parts of the country shall be represented on the commission, but I would draw to the attention of the members from the maritime provinces and from the prairie provinces that the three maritime provinces are to have only one representative on the commission and the three prairie provinces only one representative. If you want a commission that will be representative of the entire dominion every province should have a representative on the commission.
Furthermore, I would draw to the attention of the government that before any further beautifying is done, if that be possible, to this city, provision should be made for suitable and adequate accommodation for the members of this house who have to spend their time working in Ottawa. There is ample beyond the west block where suitable additional facilities to accommodate the members could be provided. In my opinion the east block

Federal District Commission
this should be done in view of the decision of Chief Justice Greenshields and another judge referred, to by the hon. member for Lake Centre.
It should be provided that such judges shall take notice of and be bound by the then last decision or judgment of the judicial committee of the provincial, or other court of final appeal, rendered by such court upon or with respect to such application of law. This amendment would apply to all provinces of Canada. Federal authority should be paramount and supreme, because all judges are under this act. One of the cardinal principles of the British constitution is that the courts are subservient to the legislature. It is well known that in other countries when decisions are given judges follow them as being authoritative until they have been upset. During the recess of parliament the minister should consider this matter with a view to submitting the case to the supreme court.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I would not undertake to recommend to His Excellency that this matter be submitted to the supreme court for an opinion, because it is one about which I entertain no doubt at all. I could not take the responsibility of recommending that the time of the court be taken up to pass upon a matter upon which there appears to me to be no doubt whatsoever. The doctrine of stare decisis may be the doctrine of the common law which it has been developed by the decisions of the courts, but it is not the doctrine of the civil law of the province of Quebec. I am sorry to hai'e to differ with the hon. member for Broadview on this matter, but I have some responsibility when I undertake to recommend a reference and I could not recommend that this question be referred to the court.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that there has been a rule in this house long before I came here, in fact ever since confederation-


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I moved the adjournment of the debate to aid in giving the whole hour for government business, at the minister's request. I am only continuing the second reading of the bill and I have net finished. I shall not take up the time of the house because there is more important business to be done, but I want to say that since confederation it has been a rule that the Minister of Justice, who is Attorney General, should
not give a legal opinion in this house and the minister has violated that rule by giving an opinion.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has no right to speak twice on the second reading of a bill. Second, he knows that the motion for the adjournment of the debate is not debatable.


Thomas Langton Church: With all due deference to Your Honour I am continuing the debate on the second reading of the bill. This bill was called.


James Horace King: The hon. member spoke on the bill and he resumed his seat, and then the right hon. Minister of Justice answered the hon. member. The hon. member knows perfectly well that he cannot speak twice on the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I moved the second reading of this bill and I moved the adjournment of the debate, only to let the government have my time. The hour for private and public bills was called.


James Horace King: According to the rules of the house, a motion for adjournment is not debatable.


Thomas Langton Church: The bill is debatable under the guarantee I had. The minister has given an illegal opinion and he has no right to give any such opinion. It is an intimidation of the judges.


James Horace King: The list of private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will resume the consideration of the business it was considering at six o'clock.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of bill No. 357, to amend the Federal District Commission Act.
Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I was trying to indicate to the government what I would have to tell the people of my constituency when I got home, I hope in a few weeks, should this bill carry. A few days ago the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) raised a question in the house about the hideous noise created by the federal district commission engineers or workmen when tearing up the cement on confederation square. A short time ago a school in my constituency
Judges Act

more than any other needs a face-lifting treatment. I would suggest also that, in my opinion, Ottawa is the city that would respond least to treatment of that kind. You could pour the entire resources of the country into this place to carry out the plans of a few people, and how many folks throughout the nation would have an opportunity to see the result? I have enjoyed being driven around this city by some of my friends, seeing the drives which no doubt will be extended under the measure now before this house. But I am sure a casual visitor to this city would be astounded to find that in order to get to a streetcar in the morning to go to work he had to stumble over ashcans and garbage cans, even on many of the so-called respectable streets. Further, while I have had the pleasure of meeting many people here who have been kind and friendly and, as individuals, quite hospitable and fine, I could take you to many a prairie town which would show a decided improvement over the city of Ottawa when it comes to a cooperative spirit in wanting to do something to the advantage of their city without having to ask the government for money all the time.
I shall detain the house for only a moment, longer, but I want to add that I hope to be able to return to my own constituency within a few weeks, and when the veterans there ask me what I have done and what the government have done so that they may get homes for themselves and their families I shall reply, " My friends, we have made plans to beautify Ottawa." I must say that a short time ago a school burned down-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


Joseph William Burton: Perhaps you would call it six o clock, Mr. Speaker; I see some hon. members are anxious to take recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Fania Pus-topedskaites Sobolevicius, otherwise known as Fanny Pustopedsky Sobolevicius.-Mr. Mavbank.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Frances Mary Fisk Irwin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Lilias Clark Watt James.-Mr. Brown.
[Mr. Bill	No.	350,	for	the relief of Michael
Gibson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill	No.	351,	for	the relief of Azarie
Trottier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	352,	for the relief of Elizabeth
Sharp Hamelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 3o3. for the relief of Lucille Aimee Cadieux Laeombe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	354,	for	the relief of Mary
Wetstein Szabo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	355,	for	the relief of Brandla
Lylerburg Guz, otherwise known as Bertha Silverberg Gass.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Natalie Kathleen Fearon Kirouae.-Mr. Baker.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of bill No. 13, to amend the Judges Act.
Thomas Langton Church: I did not happen to be in the house when the matter was up before about bill No. 13, to amend the Judges Act. The first part of this amendment which deals with judges acting as commissioners or arbitrators has already been dealt with. The second part, refers to a matter commented upon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he replied to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on Friday night. I contend that there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether federal judges appointed under this act of the parliament of Canada should not be found by the decisions of the court of last resort, in other words whether the doctrine of stare decisis should apply. That doctrine is that the decision of a court of record is authoritative and must be followed by judges appointed under this act.
There have been a number of decisions in the province of Quebec, and Chief Justice Greenshield? decided that judges appointed under this act were bound by the decisions of the imperial committee of the privy council, following this doctrine. By the act of 1792 considerable law was copied into the statutes of Ontario and Quebec, such law as was adapted to our circumstances. During the discussion on the second reading of this bill I agreed to bring up the matter on the estimates so as not to take up the time of the house, but I suggest to the minister now that he should consider referring this matter to the supreme court for a decision. I submit that

Federal District Commission
There are two features to the bill which make it objectionable. They are wrong. My first objection is based on the explanatory note to the bill which is found on page 1 and which reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, so as to enable the commission to discharge more readily the duties that will devolve upon it in connection with the development of the national capital area as a national war memorial.
My next objection is to the manner in which the introductory resolution was piloted through the house. When my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, questioned the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the day that the resolution was put through the house, the Acting Prime Minister made reference to what the bill would be. These references may be found at pages 4384 and 43S5 of Hansard. He said that the purpose was to increase the allowance to the district commission from $200,000 to $300,000. Nowhere is there any mention made of the $3 million which we later discovered in the bill when it was put into our hands.
As has been said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, this can easily be considered as a start on expenditures which may run into hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe that the vast majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent feel that the best and most fitting memorial that we can have to the memory of those who ga've so much is a healthy, happy and contented people with security in their own homes. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw that first things should come first. We need to make it possible for people to have security and the needed requisites which will make them healthy and enjoyable from one end of Canada to the other. Let it never be forgotten that those who died, died not for Ottawa alone. They died for Canada, and for the institutions we hold so dear to our way of life.
As to my second objection, namely the slipping into the bill of the $3 million clause, as has been pointed out previously this is likely to be just the thin edge of the wedge and may lead to the point where this will become the sump hole into which we shall be draining the revenue of the entire nation. Of course we should beautify, but not only Ottawa. Let us start out to beautify the entire countiy. Let us spread this thing out; let us beautify in different directions. Give all our communities an opportunity to beautify, to make the whole country a living memory to those who gave so much to save it for us. Only a few weeks ago I had an opportunity
to be in the city of Moose Jaw, represented here by my hon. colleague. While waiting for the evening session of our convention to commence, I walked through the city park, which was constructed at a time when in many parts of this country people did not know what to do in order to provide labour for those who required it to maintain themselves and their families. In that park are little artificial lakes, a little stream with wild fowl on it, flowers planted here and there, shade trees growing up; and as I walked through I thought what a vision the people had who were responsible for that monument constructed at that time by those who needed help and were given useful employment. I could not help thinking also that during that same period hundreds, yes, thousands of young, able-bodied men had started to trek from the western provinces all the way to Ottawa, and that they were stopped in Regina by the government of that day by means of policemen's billies and bullets, instead of being told to go ahead to Ottawa where they could get work and wages on which they could live respectably.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the bill before the house.


Joseph William Burton: I shall be happy to abide by your request, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I was doing so by giving this illustration as to what we could and should have done in the past. Perhaps you will permit me to conclude that portion of my remarks by saying that if those young men had been able to come on to Ottawa, if they had been provided with work and wages, we would have been able to beautify-


James Horace King: Order. If he looks at the bill the hon. gentleman will realize that the house is not discussing labour problems. The bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927. I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill which is before the house.


Joseph William Burton: Very well, Mr. Speaker; to the best of my ability I shall endeavour to abide by your request and deal with the provisions of this bill, in which we are laying the groundwork for the things that are to be done here. I was merely pointing out that some of that work could have been done in the past, at a much more appropriate time than the present.
In my travels across the country I have been in many cities, and I am quite prepared to admit that of all those I have seen, Ottawa

Federal District Commission
or not that is the amount, but it has been suggested. I oppose the scheme at present because I believe that first things come first. In Canada to-day we have certain vital projects which are needed for the actual wellbeing of the Canadian people. For example, water is one of the necessities of life. On the prairie provinces there are thousands of square miles which have not enough water. Surely an irrigation project for western Canada is more important than a beautification scheme for Ottawa. If we can have both, that is fine; but while the beautifying of Ottawa and Hull can be classed in the category of a luxury, irrigation in western Canada cannot. Therefore I say that first things must come first. It is ill-advised to spend an amount such as this on beautifying Ottawa at the present time with so much other more important work yet to be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make one or two general comments on the bill. I do that, having in mind the question which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked the other lay. He asked whether, when the bill came ip for second reading, a statement would be made by the acting minister as to the scope of the expenditures.
But I wish to raise another question. As I read the bill, it provides not only $300,000 a year but that the commission may on its own authority raise an additional S3 million. So far as I have read the bill, it seems to me that it leaves the door wide open as to how this money is to be spent. What I am not clear on is whether we may wake up and find a federal expenditure of this $300,000 a year and this sum of $3 million has been used as the entrance fee, the money paid to get in to see the game. We may find projects have been started which may involve us in vast expenditures. In this I have the same fear as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher).
There is one other point I wish to raise, and it has to do with another question asked by my leader. I assume that the minister will answer these questions, because to me they are important. As I understood the words used last September in the speech from the throne, it was proposed that there should be a national war memorial the scope of which staggered me. My leader asked the other evening whether the Acting Prime Minister would state just where this memorial fitted into the proposals in this bill, and it is in that connection that I wish to make this remark.
In my opinion there are two proper kinds of national war memorials. One is the shrine that they have, let us say at Edinburgh, or here in the Peace Tower, and the other is something in the way of a social amenity, a park or a playground or something of that kind. We have a war memorial here which I term the shrine type, and I do not think we need another. Quite properly, in my opinion, that is at the national capital. I strongly suggest that the other type of war memorial, the type which usually takes the form of a park, a playground, or something else should not be put in the national capital, but should be spread all through the country. There should be one in each province because they are for the use of the people as a whole.
What I fear about this bill is that we might find ourselves embarking on a plan which has no limitation to it, and which may involve us in spending hundreds of millions of dollars for the beautification of this area. There is no one prouder of the national capital than I am; there is no one more ready to give credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I think we should. I believe that he is the man who has given more thought to it than anyone. There is no one more ready to see appropriate amounts spent for that proper purpose, but I am absolutely opposed to a bill which may involve us in the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in Ottawa under the guise of a national war memorial.
I am therefore anxious that, before the principle of the bill is approved, we have our minds cleared on this point which seems to me to be so vital. If we were merely voting $300,000 a year and $3 million-that is a lot of money-I would feel somewhat differently about the matter. If I felt, as I do not feel, that these expenditures were likely to be the end I would look at it in a different way. But we may wake up one day to find that this money has been spent in such a way as to commit us to the expenditure of further amounts, part of which, if they are for a national war memorial, are in my opinion not properly expendable under this heading.


Joseph William Burton: In rising to take part in this debate on the second reading of the bill in support of the objections raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), I wish to say that I am prepared to go farther than he did. I am opposed to the principle of the bill. When I say that I wish to make it plain that I am not pretending to speak on behalf of anyone other than the people of the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
TMr. Thatcher.]

Federal District Commission
present. A large number of votes for Ottawa were passed the other night in committee of supply without one question being asked, and I do not think we should be spending money in that way.
. I believe the city of Ottawa should receive its proper due, but it should be remembered that it is to receive a grant of $300,000 in exchange for exemptions of property from taxation and services rendered by the municipality. I suggest that the time has come when there should be equality of treatment along the lines indicated, for every other municipality that gives federal property services. The government now intends to branch out and take in the city of Hull. Its scheme embraces a radius of thirty miles. The taxpayers are being asked for fabulous sums of money today. In 1896 and 1897, in the time of Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our estimates amounted to $36 million; then it went up gradually to about $425 million, and now our civilian estimates amount to a billion and a half.
I do not think the time is appropriate for such a grand programme as this. Where is the plan and survey for such a scheme and cost? What is more, Canadian engineers do not seem to be good enough. We must bring men in from France and Europe and other countries when we can get capable men from our own Canadian universities. Posterity will have to pay for this expensive programme which the government proposes to undertake. There ought to be some sanity about these expenditures when more houses are needed. The time may come later when we ought to have a federal district commission, but this is not the time, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not here to explain the bill.
We have had a federal commission in Ottawa for a great many years and members of parliament have never been asked to look over their work. The government is now going to step into another .province and make the work cover two provinces. That sort of thing is all very well for the United States, with a population of 135 million or 40 million, but I do not think it should be undertaken in Canada at the present time without at least consulting the provinces, especially the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The people should be asked to vote on it. The city of Ottawa should be asked to vote on it. I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that it would be well for him to lay this bill, as only a secondary one, until next session.
As regards the proposal to appoint fifteen men to the commission, if you are going to run the federal district commission by provinces, by geographical area, rather than from
the commercial point of view, you are making a great mistake. When the city of Toronto took over the transportation system and formed a commission some people wanted to have a political commission set up, but we appointed only three commissioners and they did the work quite efficiently. I do not believe in having too many men on a commission of this sort, who never direct and are only figureheads. The commission that has been running the light, power and transportation system in our province has given satisfaction. This is true of both the provincial and municipal commissions. It has made a great success of that undertaking from the commercial aspect, with large surpluses.
This whole question should be given further consideration. This bill which proposes to amend the act of 1927 is going to be very wide in scope. The government will be acquiring property; as I say, it will be branching out into another province; and if you have a commission of fifteen men the whole thing will be run by provincial and geographical considerations. We should have a report on the subject. I do not see why we could not appoint Canadian engineers, when wanted, from our own universities. There is no need for us to go outside Canada if we want to get able men.
This is only one of the secondary bills which the government is proposing, and in my opinion it should strike about twenty of them off the list so as to enable the house to get through at the end of next week.
Mr. W. R, THATCHER (Moose Jaw): There are just a couple of comments I wish to make on this bill. As I said the other day, I agree with the principle of it. Most Canadians, I believe, wish to see a beautiful capital city. But, like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), I do not think the timing is appropriate. Perhaps I fail to grasp the significance of this important bill, or perhaps, as was suggested the other day, my outlook is provincial. Be that as it may, there are certain clauses which I cannot support at the present time.
The bill makes two main financial proposals. In the first place, it will increase the grant to the commission from $200,000 to $300,000 a year. In the second place, it plans to give to the commission an additional sum of $3,000,000 in the near future. I think this house should seriously consider the latter provision because it looks as if the Greber plan is to be started almost immediately. If the newspaper reports are correct, this plan may ultimately mean the expenditure of as much as $300 million. I do not know whether
Family Allowances Act

asked in effect to administer and apply the Family Allowances Act in the case of children under their care. I drew attention to the statement made by the superintendent of the children's aid society of Toronto to this effect, that the cost of bookkeeping and other services in connection with the allowance is "colossal." That was his expression in his last annual report. Having regard to what the minister said at that time, from which I inferred that the matter was under consideration, is the acting minister in a position to indicate if progress has been made in the consideration of that question? Unless some assistance is given to these children's aid societies the present form of administration will continue to cast an unfair burden on them.


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that, to offset the extra expense which children's aid societies are put to, there is a considerable saving by virtue of the fact that they are allowed, to spend some of the monthly payments for children in other directions; for example, keeping children at summer camps and the like, where under other circumstances and m former years that expense would have to be borne entirely by the children's aid societies.


Alan Cockeram: Is that an additional allowance?


James Joseph McCann: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to repeat what I said in the house at that time. I thought the minister might be able to give the committee some further information. His answer now seems to indicate that the policy of the department is opposed to giving consideration to the request of these children's aid societies and other similar societies which have children as wards for some allowance for the bookkeeping expense to which they are put. Of course the regulations did permit the application of part of the allowance to what is called "additional benefits". All these societies acknowledge quite readily the benefit that that conferred upon them in caring for their wards. But over and above that, attention was drawn to what, in the case of the children's aid society of Toronto, was called the "colossal expense" of bookkeeping and administration involved, and it was my hope that the department might have given some consideration to that. I-perhaps wrongly- inferred from what the minister said on that occasion, about six weeks ago, that the department was giving consideration to it. I thought perhaps the acting minister might be able to give the committee some further information.


James Joseph McCann: Apart from the fact that the hon. gentleman has brought this matter to the attention of the house, and that he says the children's aid society-I assume, of Toronto- has made a protest with reference to the increased expense by virtue of the increased amount of work in keeping records and the like, I am informed that no representations have been received from any children's aid society in the country along the line of asking for any extra compensation because they have extra work to do in the line of records.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry to disagree with the acting minister, but that is not what the minister said on that occasion. It was not that the Toronto society was the only one that had complained; the minister indicated that requests of the same kind had been received from other parts of the country. I am not going to press the inquiry if the acting minister has not any further information. I thought some further information might have developed from a departmental review of the question during the last six weeks.


James Joseph McCann: I think the hon. gentleman might check up on that, because I am informed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not make any such statement at that time. I do not contradict the hon. gentleman, but he might well be mistaken.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 357, to amend the Federal District Commission Act.
Thomas Langton Church: I am objecting to the principle of the bill at a time like this as a half-way measure. I think it is a great mistake to have fifteen men appointed to undertake such work as this. A federal district commission is something for which the taxpayers of Canada have not at the present time sufficient funds, and I do not think large expenditures such as the government contemplates here are justified, especially when we consider how much is being collected from the people in the form of income tax, and what is being given to the city of Ottawa at

Family Allowances Act
exceeds the amount or value of contributions for such purpose made by any other individual or individuals.
(2)	A parent shall be deemed not to cease to maintain a child who is attending school or receiving equivalent training, only by reason of such child being partially employed or engaged in work unless the earnings received therefor exceed, on an average, the sum of $35 a month.
(3)	A parent shall be deemed to cease to maintain a child who is not attending school or receiving equivalent training and who is fully or partially employed or engaged in work for which he receives a salary or wages.


Alan Cockeram: I understand that
Indians and Eskimos are not paid the allowance in cash but in kind. Has the minister the scale showing what is issued in lieu of the allowance to Indians and Eskimos?


James Joseph McCann: The amount of money which is paid in respect of Indian children is the same as is paid for white children. The Indian affairs branch has a list of articles and foodstuffs which may be purchased with the money. With reference to food, they are guided by the formula which has been set up with respect to nutritional values.


Alan Cockeram: Is it not right that children of Indians and Eskimos are not entitled to the allowance in cash but rather in kind? Would the minister give the committee the scale of rations, food and clothing, which the parents receive in lieu of cash.


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that at least half the Indians are paid in cash. For the other half the money is paid to the Indian agent, and the parents of the Indian child are given a credit and a list of articles which they may purchase against that credit. The list is one designed to satisfy normal requirements, and nutritional values are taken into account with respect to foods.


Alan Cockeram: As I understand it, and I travel occasionally in the north country, there is not any question of giving cash to a great many of these Indians.


James Joseph McCann: Fifty per cent of them get cash.


Alan Cockeram: Some bands do get cash? My understanding was that they all *went to the Indian agent and he supplied them with beans and rice and various items of food and clothing which they might require. I wondered whether the minister could give us the scale of issue in lieu of money for those bands which do take the allowance in kind, and why there is any distinction, that some should be paid in cash and some should be paid in kind.


James Joseph McCann: As I have said, almost fifty per cent do receive cash. The reason others do not receive cash is that there is among Indians, as among other people, a difference in intelligence, and there would not be much point in sending a cheque to people who could not get it cashed, so that they are given a credit which enables them to purchase whatever articles they need. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Alan Cockeram: Yes. I agree with the principle of giving the allowance in kind to Indians, certainly in a great many parts of Canada, but the reason for the differentiation must be known to the Department of Mines and Resources, and I wondered what it was.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Has the minister considered extending this grant to cover the period of education other than in the public school? It seems to me that, while education is, of course, a provincial matter, we have connected the administration of this with the school term. We start with compulsory education and we end with compulsory education. It seems to me that we might extend that to cover the life of the child through the secondary school, because, as I have said before in this chamber, that is when the child really become expensive to maintain; school books must be purchased; very often there are tuition fees to pay, and it may be necessary to provide for boarding the child away from home. It seems to me that under this bill the provision might be extended to cover the secondary school as well as the primary school.


James Joseph McCann: That is a matter to which consideration might be given. But the act has been in effect for only about a year, and we do not contemplate any great changes until we have reviewed our experience in that period. I might point out that, as regards most provinces, the mothers allowance act provides for the age of sixteen years as we have it in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In connection with payments to children's aid societies and other institutions of that kind, when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare were under review in committee of supply some weeks ago I drew the attention of the minister and the committee to the fact that complaints have been received from some of the leading children's aid societies about the great cost of bookkeeping which has been imposed upon them by reason of their being
Family Allowances Act

cooperate with us or to supply us with specific information in specific cases where we have requested it. The proviso merely gives the administration an alternative in any case where the provincial authorities, after having been asked for information, fail to supply it.
If this ever occurs, the proviso in the amending clause makes it possible for the governor in council to prescribe an alternative method by which such information may be obtained. Presumably the governor in council, if such a situation ever arose, could pass a regulation authorizing the regional director of family allowances in the province concerned to make the decision himself on any matter of school attendance or equivalent training which ordinarily the provincial educational authorities will be asked to make for us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite clear from the statement just made that the proviso in the new section 4(2a) is not to take care of any situation that exists at the moment, and that there is no occasion in mind to apply it?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I should like to be clear about children who are not attending school because of physical or mental disabilities. Would they still be eligible for the family allowance, provided that they are maintained by their parents or guardians?


James Joseph McCann: That would be accepted as a legitimate excuse from school attendance and therefore they would receive the allowance.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That would be a justifiable excuse?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In remote areas where no schools are available, if the parents or guardians did not take advantage of the correspondence course the child might receive no education whatsoever. Would such child still be eligible for the family allowance?


James Joseph McCann: The department would
accept the judgment of the educational authorities as to whether or not school facilities were available.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Paragraph (b) deals with a child who ceases to be resident in Canada. Has the minister given consideration to special circumstances or special cases? I am thinking of a girl in my constituency, the child of people of very modest means who suffers from a peculiar nervous affection. The child is highly intelligent and normal in every other way; but on account of this affection she has to be sent to the United States to school, either in the state of Washington or in California, to

receive instruction and treatment. I brought this case to the attention of the minister last fall, but it was not possible under the act then for these parents to receive the family allowance for the child. It would seem that this amendment makes no change in the law in that respect. The child's parents are not well off but are in very modest circumstances and the family allowance would be a great help to them. They cannot help the condition of the child, and they are doing all they can to assist her, straining their resources to the limit. Is special consideration given to that type of case?


James Joseph McCann: The practice has been that where the child is resident outside Canada for a period of not more than three months the child is considered resident in Canada for the purpose of the family allowance plan, but where the period is longer than that the grant under the present act does not apply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is impossible for the parents to bring the child home and send her back again to school in order to comply with the act. I think special consideration should be given to cases of that type.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: How are the children of Indians and Eskimos in remote areas taken care of, also the children of Indians on reserves where there are no convenient schools? The correspondence course would be almost impossible for them to take, because the Indian parents are not able to read or write and could not pass on the correspondence courses to the children. The minister mentioned the Indian affairs branch. Is that the branch which would decide whether these children in remote areas are eligible for the allowance?


James Joseph McCann: We rely entirely on the judgment of the Department of Mines and Resources, which is responsible for the Eskimos and Indians.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With regard to the new subsection 2 (a), providing that the allowance shall cease to be payable when the child ceases to be maintained by a parent, what interpretation has the department given to the word "maintained"? Has a ceiling been placed on a child's earnings as a condition of eligibility for the allowance?


James Joseph McCann: That is clearly set out in the regulations. I will read the regulation which covers it, regulation 12, under part IV:
(1) A parent shall be deemed to maintain a child substantial!}' so long as the amount or value of the contributions made by such parent, in cash or in kind, for the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of such child, exclusive of the allowance is $5 or more per month, and provided such amount or value

Family Allowances Act
It is alleged that the federal government, in prescribing school attendance through these years as a condition for receiving family allowances, is in effect prescribing school attendance requirements without reference to the provinces whose responsibility it is under the British North America Act, to deal with all matters pertaining to education and to control the ages of school attendance and provide the necessary facilities for education. Regulations passed coincident with the inauguration of family allowances have actually laid down the policy which is now being incorporated into the present amendment to section 4, subsection 2.
The gist of this amendment is that an allowance shall cease to be payable if a child does not attend school in conformity with the age limits and other conditions laid down by the school attendance authorities of the province in which the child resides. In other words, we will take the judgment of the provincial school attendance authorities in each province as to whether or not a child is attending school in accordance with the laws of that province affecting school attendance. Where the provincial school attendance authorities are satisfied that a child is attending school in accordance with the laws of that province, we will continue the allowances. Where the provincial authorities are satisfied that a child absent from school is legally excused, or that it is not in any way violating the school attendance laws of the province-over the age limit, absent from school on work permit, et cetera-we will likewise continue to pay the allowances as long as the child does not enter the wage-earning class and cease to be maintained by his parent. If, however, the provincial authorities advise us that a child is of school attendance age and is absent from school without justifiable excuse, we will then discontinue the allowances. This means that our practice and procedure will necessarily vary from province to province in accordance with the varying requirements in each province with respect to school attendance.
It should be pointed out further, in connection with the new section 4 (2) (a), that the school attendance regulations with respect to Indians in each province and the school attendance regulations with respect to all children -Indians, Eskimos and whites-in the northwest territories or Yukon territory are matters over which the federal government, through the Department of Mines and Resources, has control. The amending clause, therefore, exempts Indian children in the provinces from the control of provincial school attendance regulations in so far as family
allowances are concerned and provides that an educational authority prescribed by regulation shall determine matters of school attendance with respect to Indians in the provinces or children in the northwest and Yukon territories in so far as family allowances are concerned. Under arrangements already set forth in the regulations, designated officials of the Department of Mines and Resources have been named as the educational authorities referred to in connection with these matters.
There is a reference in section 4 (2) of the act as it stands at present to equivalent training as being an acceptable substitute for school attendance. The question has arisen as to who should determine the adequacy of equivalent training. It would not seem to be proper that the federal authority should take it upon itself, in the administration of family allowances, to decide what, in any given case, is training equivalent to that which is offered by the provincial educational authorities. This would mean that the federal government would be setting itself up in judgment over provincial educational authorities and systems. Consequently, instead of prescribing equivalent training by regulation, as called for in the present act, the new amendment contemplates referring all questions of equivalent training to the appropriate provincial authorities in all cases where the provincial authorities have jurisdiction. It will be for the provincial authorities to certify in any given case whether or not training outside the ordinary school system is equivalent to that which would be furnished if a child were actually in school attendance.
Likewise the educational authorities designated by regulation to deal with Indian children and with, children, in the territories will pass upon questions of equivalent training in cases falling under their jurisdiction.
One of the best examples of equivalent training is the system of correspondence school education which is offered by most provinces for the instruction of children- living in remote areas where school facilities are totally lacking.
Finally, some comment should be made on the final proviso in amending section 4(2)'(a). We confidently expect that all the provincial educational authorities! without exception will agree to cooperate with us in- supplying the information and certification on matters pertaining to school attendance or equivalent training. In all provinces without exception we have developed good working relationships with the provincial educational authorities. The time might come, however, in some province when the provincial authorities for one reason or another would not wish to
Family Allowances Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is correct, but that section was put in particularly in view of these numerous local agents of the board.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that covers my objection completely, and I want to thank the minister for agreeing to the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the second reading of bill No. 308, to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1

Proviso.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think the first part of the proposed amendment, subsection 2 of section 4, is clear in its intent. With regard to the proposed new subsection (2a), I should like to ask the acting minister a question or two. It will be observed that the effect of subsection (2a) is to take care of cases where a child is not regularly attending school in accordance with the laws of the province or, in the case of the territories, an educational authority prescribed by regulation; that is, attending school or taking training equivalent to that which he would receive if he attended school. Then, at the conclusion of paragraph (2a) is this proviso:
Provided that where information as to school attendance or equivalent training, as may be requested, is not furnished by the competent educational authority of the province, the governor in council may prescribe the manner in which such information may be obtained.
I should like to ask the acting minister whether any such cases have occurred and whether there has been any difficulty in establishing school attendance on the part of children eligible for family allowances in accordance with the laws of the province of residence.


James Joseph McCann: I might say the department is getting cooperation from every province and there have not been cases of complaint. The main purpose of the amendment to

section 4, subsection 2, is to deal with the question of school attendance. At the present time the act provides that the allowance shall cease to be payable with the payment for the month when the child, being above the age of six years and physically fit to attend school, fails to attend school or receive equivalent training as prescribed in the regulations.
On the face of it, this clause as originally drafted might be interpreted to mean that a child over six years of age had to attend school until he was sixteen in order to receive family allowances, even though the laws of the province in which he resided did not provide for compulsory school attendance between the ages of six and sixteen. The fact is that hardly any of the provinces provide for compulsory school attendance at an age as early as six. In most provinces the age for commencing school, is fixed at six, but the age for compulsory commencement of school is seven or even eight. That means that children are allowed to go to school at six, but in some provinces they are not compelled to go to school until they are either seven or eight years of age.
In many provinces also the school leaving age is not fixed as late as sixteen. In some provinces it is fixed, as early as fourteen or fifteen, and in some provinces there are other provisions to the effect that if a child reaches a certain standing in his school grade, for example, grade nine standing, he is not required to attend school any longer. Other provinces again, in some cases, set the school leaving age at fourteen or fifteen or sixteen, but require a child who attains this age in the middle of a school year to complete the school year before leaving school. Most provinces have developed systems of work [DOT] permits and other devices under which they legally excuse children from school attendance under certain circumstances, for example, to go to work, to help on the farm, to help at home, et cetera.
All these factors have influenced us in reaching the conclusion that it is not practical to insist in any federal law on compulsory school attendance between the ages of six and sixteen without adjusting our provision regarding school attendance to the circumstances prevailing in the different provinces whose responsibility it is to prescribe the ages for compulsory school attendance.
Exception has been taken to this insistence in federal legislation on school attendance between the ages of six and sixteen as a condition of the receipt of family allowances.

Foreign Exchange Control
exchanges will be such that it will be possible to remove exchange control within the period suggested by my hon. friend. No one would be better pleased than I were that possible, but I am convinced that it will not be possible. All the indications are the other way. For instance, under the Bretton Woods agreement it was indicated that what was referred to as the transition period would be probably a period of at least five years. Under our loan to Britain there is a preliminary period, a transition period if you will, of five years during which no interest is payable. All the indications are that it will be a period of perhaps two, three, four or five years before we can expect to have anything resembling normal international exchange conditions. That is a matter of opinion, I appreciate, but I put this forward as my opinion.
The difficulty and danger, I think, in putting a rigid time limit on a bill of this kind-a year, the hon. gentleman suggests- would be that this period might expire at a time parliament was not in session, a most inconvenient time, when it would not be possible to have a full and free debate on the matter. There are a number of reasons which I think should be obvious to all hon. members as to why I, at any rate, feel it is not desirable to put a time limit on a bill of this kind. Circumstances are rather different with respect to the Emergency Transitional Powers Act, because in that act the executive branch of government . is given power to legislate in regard to a wide variety of subjects. Here we are dealing with a matter the principle of which is very simple.


John Thomas Hackett: But it affects a whole range of subjects.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The principle here is that we exercise government control of the international exchanges in place of the free market. The method of administration is complicated, but the principle is simple, and that is the single principle before this house. The house will have an opportunity each year to review the operations of this board, and I should hope and expect that it would review them pretty thorough^. I should expect searching questions to be asked as to the operations of the board and as to the necessity of continuing those operations. That is why we have inserted in this bill a provision that each year the government must come to parliament for an appropriation to carry on the activities of the board.
For all these reasons and others, the government has come to the conclusion that the usual practice should be followed, that no definite limitation should be imposed upon
the operation of this measure, but that it should be left to parliament to repeal the legislation when it is considered no longer necessary in the interests of the people of Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in Britain the practice to which he has referred appears to be one of definite limitation. I have before me the statutes of 1945, chapter 9 of which is headed "An act to continue certain expiring laws," and begins in this way:
Whereas the acts mentioned in the schedule to this act are, in so far as they are in force and are temporary in their duration, limited to expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the continuance as in this act mentioned, of those acts and of the enactments amending or affecting the same . . .
They are continued for one year, and are to expire on the last day of December, 1946.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is exactly what I said.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 54-Protection of officers and others.
Douglas Charles Abbott: You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that this section was allowed to stand. I have given some consideration to the section, and I think that has been done as well by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I explained that the words "written or verbal instructions of the board or an inspector" were put in the section primarily to protect the numerous authorized agents of the board, and particularly the branches of the chartered banks, against frivolous litigation. In order to tighten it up a little, I would suggest that the words "or an inspector" be struck out, and would be prepared to ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to that effect. Perhaps the hon. member for Lake Centre would care to look at that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the removal of the words "or an inspector" would cover my main objection to this section. It would then place the responsibility on the board, not on an inspector. As it is proposed to be amended it will not go any farther, as I see it, than the preceding portion of the section, namely that the defendant acted upon probable cause.
Foreign Exchange Control

were looking at it twelve months from now or eleven months from now we might have a substantially different situation.
I have one further point to make, namely, that I have been disappointed and other people have been disappointed-but I am not going into that-by the fact that the minister has felt it was necessary to have this bill with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. Some of us hoped that there might have been some alleviation, some lessening of rigidity. I suggest that from the point of view of those who will administer the act, the foreign exchange control board, psychologically it would be of the greatest advantage if they had facing them the fact that within a comparatively short time this thing has to be reviewed.
I think that as things are we have to rely on them to some extent-it is a faint reliance- to come back and tell us that there is some way in which the matter can be handled, the rigidity can be lessened and some freedom restored. Therefore I suggest that from the point of view of those who are to administer this act-if we wish for relaxation ourselves- we should leave them with the onus of coming back next year and saying either that the situation is unchanged and that, therefore, we must extend this power for another year, or, in the alternative, that it can be relaxed in certain ways. Perhaps it is too much to hope that that might be done; perhaps it is too much to hope that they would recommend that. For this reason I put this forward.
If I remember correctly, in committee the minister gave as his reason for the view which he held that the bill should be left as it is- and I am hoping that he has changed in that regard-that he preferred to follow the British practice. I believe that was the statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was one of my reasons.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The chief reason, as I recall it. I suggest that the British practice is not always uniform; that it does not really get us anywhere by saying it is the British practice, because there are cases where that is not the British practice. I have said that it is not the practice with the Militia Act.
I leave the matter with the minister now by suggesting that no harm can be done by limiting the time, if there is no change in the next year, as I believe we all hope, as I believe the minister hopes, there will be, which will enable us to take a different view. If those changes do occur, then it is of manifest importance that we do not send this out with no time limit on it, but that we have one. Conversely, if we come here next year and we say regretfully that there is still an

emergency and we cannot do much about the matter, no harm will have been done except that we shall have spent a little time, considering the matter. At that time we would regretfully say-and I am sure the minister will agree with it; in fact he has already said it-that we would again abandon what we regard as the usually normal processes and take up and accept emergency measures to meet with an emergency. I earnestly plead with the minister to grant this last request.


John Thomas Hackett: I listened to the plea of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I fear that his plea, eloquent though it was, has fallen on deaf ears. I have heard that plea made in the house on a number of acca-sions, but at no time has there been any indication that the government was willing by one iota to depart from the position that it had taken.
The war is at an end for well over a year. Controls still persist and the means of enforcing them have been reenacted. Much as I should like to see some indication on the part of the government of a return to free enterprise, I am bound to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that the trend is the other way. The trend is directly toward centralization, socialization and perpetuating that system which we took on for the period of the war. There is no intimation, no suggestion of any relaxation, and I say regretfully that, in my view, the plea of the last speaker has fallen upon deaf ears.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say just one word in reply, more particularly to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. Let me assure him that I did give the most earnest and careful consideration to the desirability and the advisability of putting some time limit on the duration of this bill. After giving it that consideration, for a number of reasons I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to do so. In substance I gave those reasons to the committee, and I do not know that there is any particular need for my elaborating them here. Under the British parliamentary system it is the general practice not to put a time limit on the duration of a statute unless it is of a special kind. That contrasts with the practice in other jurisdictions where the executive branch of government is separate from the legislative branch; but where the executive branch of government is responsible to the legislative branch, the usual practice is to impose upon the government the responsibility of deciding whether a measure should or should not be repealed, and of course parliament really has that responsibility. There is no indication that conditions in international

Foreign Exchange Control
are not as well trained as those in the Department of Finance or in the foreign exchange control board-when, in addition to all that, you put upon a man the burden of proving his innocence, then I am surprised that you have not 100 per cent of convictions. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the question.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Is it not true that the burden of proof may be shifted automatically where certain facts are or should be within the knowledge of the accused or defendant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may take place, yes, but not as a rule, where the crown has to prove intent. If the crown establishes a prima facie case the defendant has to answer it.
Mr. JAENICIvE: Is it not the case here that where the crown establishes a prima facie case that the offence has been committed the burden of proof is shifted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point is that the crown is relieved of the burden of proving intent on the part of the person charged.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 62 and 63 agreed to.
On section 64-Actions to be commenced within three years.


John Thomas Hackett: I have not expressed any opinion with regard to these penalties but I wish to observe that they are a reversion to the days when a person was assumed to be guilty once charged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 65 to 73 inclusive agreed to.
On section 74-Coming into force.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I believe it was when the first clause of the bill was under discussion that I asked whether I might then be allowed to move an amendment limiting the effect of the act, and it was ruled by you, Mr. Chairman, that I should reserve the amendment until this time. I do not propose to speak at any length because I gave my reasons substantially the other morning. I wish to go over them briefly.


William Ross Macdonald: Perhaps I had better read the amendment to the committee. It is moved by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that section 74 be amended by adding the following as subsection 2:
This act shall continue in force for not more than one year from the date of proclamation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I am correct in saying that when the 6326n-287J
matter was first under discussion the minister indicated that his mind was open on the subject; and although there has been a period in the interval when I feared that it was not open, I am hoping that it might have opened again. Alternatively, I am hoping either that he has become so tired of saying "no" that he will finally say "yes" to this final appeal. I hope that he has not got so used to saying no that he does not know how to pronounce the word "yes".


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is nothing I like
better than to say yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to go on by saying that I think the minister has said-whether he has said it or not, I am sure he believes as I do-that this should be regarded as an emergency measure. When you have an emergency measure, it is reasonable to treat it as something which in the ordinary course you would review in a reasonable time. I think there is a danger that in these days the abnormal becomes the normal. One gets used to things which a few years ago he would have regarded with absolute abhorrence. But I am not going to deal with that any farther. I am just going to repeat that I feel that this bill should be looked upon as a temporary measure. I appeal to the minister to accept the view that it is reasonable in these days not to put this on the statute books without a time limit, so that within a comparatively short time we may take another look at it. I submit that if the situation has not changed in a year from now -that is what I am suggesting-but if the times are just as difficult, if -nothing has happened to change the situation as it is now, then at that time we could extend it.
I wish to put forward again the two or three precedents which I gave. There was the emergency powers bill which we passed in this house last autumn. There is the militia bill which by the sanction of centuries has been regarded as an emergency measure which parliament has brought back to it each year so that it can have the control clearly in its own hands. And then there is another matter.
I mention this specially because it has happened since the bill was introduced, and I hope that it may particularly influence the minister's mind. I mention the fact that since the bill was introduced we have had the United States loan to Britain, and I think lie will agree with me that at any rate that introduces a situation which possibly, and I might say even probably, may affect the situation so vitally within the next year that if we
Foreign Exchange Control

On section 59-Where offence deemed to have been committed.


Douglas King Hazen: Subsection 2 provides that any information or complaint with respect to any offence against the provisions of this act may, where the prosecution, suit or proceeding is instituted under the provisions of the criminal code relating to summary convictions, be laid or made within three years from the time when the matter of the information or complaint arose. Under the criminal code, in matters of summary conviction the information or complaint must be laid within six months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On summary conviction, yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Why is it deemed necessary in this case to- extend the period to three years? As pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops, a man may have a permit now but not three years hence. Why is the period extended for such a length of time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The reason is that a large number oif exchange control offences are of such a nature that they are not ordinarily disclosed until a considerable time after the commission of the offence, and in the absence of this section, under those circumstances, prosecution by indictment would be necessary if a charge were laid1 more than six months after the offence had been committed. There are similar provisions in the Income War Tax Act, section SO, subsection 4, where the time is five years; in the Excise Act, section 121, two- years, and in the Customs Act, section 277, where the time is three years.


Douglas King Hazen: Those all have to do with business enterprises.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This has a lot to do with business enterprises.


Douglas King Hazen: The ordinary man will not keep his records for three years. There should be some pro-vision to protect him and this section does not make it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 60-Penalty-offences relating to property.
Mr. DIE-FENBAKER:	I do not know
whether the minister has given any information in regard to the number of offences tried by way of summary conviction procedure in each of the last three years and the number tried by way of indictment.
f\Tr. Cftstleilen.]
Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not a breakdown as between the two types of offences, but I have the totals:
Year Convictions	Fines	Prison sentences1940...	54	$15,455	2 years-3 cases1941...	*144	39,511	9 months-i cases1942...	109	53,450	12 years and 3months-5 cases1943...	170	47.560	*13J years-6 cases1944...	81	40,458	1 year and 2months-2 cases-1945...	47	28,815	[DOT]No prison sen-tencesFrom Jan. to April, 1946...	12	1,300	
The total fines were $226,549. Section agreed to.
On section 61-Property liable to forfeiture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raise the same objection to this section as I did to section 58. This is a most important matter, and I will simply ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the question in order that we may have a vote on the section. Before you do that, however, may I say that the principle is exactly the same as we discussed before. Since prosecutions, fines and convictions have been mentioned, I recall speaking with an enforcement officer under the wartime prices and trade board where there are many similar provisions shifting the onus of proof, and that officer boasted
__well, I would not say that he boasted, I
will simply say that he said: "After all, we are pretty careful before we bring any prosecution. We make sure that we have all the facts, and our record in the cases that we have prosecuted runs to about ninety-eight per cent guilty. That, I think, speaks for itself". The answer I made to him was to this effect: The reason may be one or both of two things. We will admit that you are careful about the way you bring prosecutions, but on the other hand the high level of convictions may mean that you frame the law in such a way that once you lay the charge, a man is automatically found guilty. I think it speaks more that way than it does the other.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Or it may be that the law is so just and the facts so clear that conviction necessarily follows. .


Edmund Davie Fulton: That might be too; but when you have all the burden of proof placed on the defendant, when you have a department having complete records and compare that with the businessman-and I am speaking of small storekeepers who engage in minor transactions, whose records are not as complete as those of the department and whose clerks

Foreign Exchange Control
with the foreign exchange control board as such; they relate to the effective enforcement of the act, which of course is a pretty important portion of the control, because it is important that people should believe that the act is fully and fairly administered. The great majority of permits and declarations are approved or made to authorized dealers, that is to banks, and it is generally impossible for the board to state definitely that no permit has been granted or declaration made covering a particular transaction. On the other hand the declarant or applicant for the permit gets the copy of it and he knows whether he has got the permit or not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How long does he keep it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The shifting of the burden of proof is therefore no hardship on the applicant. The defendant in one of these actions knows perfectly well whether he has obtained a permit or not, and it is very easy for him to establish that. On the other hand, permits have been issued by thousands of branch banks throughout the country, and it is pretty difficult if not impossible for the board to know at a given time whether or not an applicant has his permit. Careful consideration was given to this. My colleagues and I are conscious of the fact that this is an exception to the general rule that the burden of proof is on the crown to show that a man is guilty. But we feel on balance that this is a not unreasonable condition to put upon those who are dealing with foreign exchange, and for that reason I feel that the section should remain in the act.	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the minister's point of view, and I accept at its face value his assurance that careful consideration was given to this matter; but I must make this observation, that it is the first time I have heard difficulty of administration advanced as a reason for making a fundamental change in legal principles, and I think that it is an entirely invalid ground on which to base any argument. For my part I do not accept it. As far as difficulty is concerned, it is no more difficult for the board to prove that it did or did not issue a permit than it is for a man who received a permit three years ago, but who has lost or destroyed it, to prove that he received it; and if the statement that banks or agents of the board do not keep records-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, they do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -is to be urged as justification for importing this principle, I do not think it is a valid argument, I have in mind that this transaction may have taken place four 63260-'287
or five years ago and that persons may actually be completely unable to prove they ever received a permit, because they have lost it. Business men, and particularly small business men-country merchants, country storekeepers -do not keep their records as carefully as government departments do, or as we hope government departments do. It is the crown that lays the prosecution or the information; it is the crown which brings the action, and I think the crown should accept the normal responsibility which rests upon it of proving its case before the unfortunate innocent citizen can be found guilty. It is a principle which we simply cannot allow to be infringed for the slender and tenuous reasons the minister has advanced. In order to bring the matter to a head, I move:
That section 58 of the bill be deleted, and that the subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly.


William Ross Macdonald: A similar amendment was moved this morning, and I declared it out of order. The effect of the amendment, in fact the words of the amendment, are that the clause be deleted. The clause will automatically be deleted if it is not carried when I take the vote.
Mr. FULTON; I was under the impression that it was necessary to renumber the subsequent clauses, and that that should be included as an amendment. However the purpose of the amendment is that the question shall be put.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops one question. If he were charged with driving a car without a licence, would he expect the burden of proof that he had a licence to be upon the officers of the law, or would he consider that he would have to produce his licence?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can answer that this way. There is a burden which I know now rests on me to carry my licence while I am driving. But as far as I know there is no burden on me to keep an export permit or any sort of permit, which I may have had four years ago, indefinitely from year to year to be produced when asked for. There is no such obligation upon me.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the same principle applies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a clear duty on a man to produce his licence whenever he drives his car. There is no such duty in this case.


George Hugh Castleden: I think there is.
Section agreed1 to on division.

Foreign Exchange Control

On section 58-Burden of proof on the person that he possessed necessary permit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Subsections 1 and 2 of this section shift the burden of proof which would normally rest on the person prosecuting the case-on the crown, that is to say, or whoever has laid the information-to the defendant. I am going to move an amendment that the whole section be deleted. If the whole section were deleted it would in no way interfere writh the principle of foreign exchange control and would not interfere with any powers necessary for its efficient administration, because this clause concerns only the prosecution of a person charged with an offence against the act. The reason I think it is important to delete the section is that it is time parliament put an end to the practice that has been creeping in of shifting the burden of proof on to an accused person or defendant. I admit there are precedents for that in the Customs Act and Excise Act, but that does not make the principle a good one. I do not think one wrong is justified by another. Secondly, this is an entirely new set of circumstances. Even the minister has admitted that he hopes this control will only be temporary and that he does not want to give powers that are not essential. That in itself makes the argument as to what was done before in some other act invalid in this case. A further reason why this section should be deleted is to be found in the sections immediately following, sections 50 and 60, which provide that all proceedings under this act are to be laid in accordance with the criminal code. There is no separate procedure provided for by this bill. If the proceedings are brought under the criminal code it becomes in essence, although some details of the procedure may vary, an offence that partakes of the nature of a crime. It has always been held, and never questioned, that before a man can be found guilty of a crime the crown must prove the element of intent, and I think it is a bad principle to make it possible to lay proceedings under the criminal code and then to say "we will exempt the crown from the obligation of proving that the man intended to commit the infraction of which he is charged." If it is not intended that the crown should have to prove that intent, if it is not intended that the crown should accept all the burdens imposed on it by the criminal code, I suggest that some other procedure should be laid down.
By reason of a conviction under this act a man is virtually branded a criminal, because that is the effect when an information is laid under the criminal code. I suggest that

the effect of this section 58 that when a person is charged with an offence, and it is established in proof that the person did any act or omission for which a permit is required, it shall not be necessary to establish in proof of the offence that- the person charged did not possess a permit or had not been exempted, and so on, and the burden of proof that he did act in accordance with the regulations shall pass to the person charged-means that the crown is relieved from the burden of proving that the person intended to break the law. It is admitted, of course, that ignorance of the law is no excuse; a man cannot plead "I did not know the law and therefore I am not guilty of intentionally breaking the provisions of the act." But many people, knowing the law, nevertheless do things entirely innocently as far as intent is concerned, having no wish to break the law or even infringe any of its provisions. I know that similar provisions are found in many regulations under the wartime prices and trade board with regard to rationing, and that it is provided that if a certain set of circumstances is proved the onus of proof is placed on the accused person to show that he did not commit an infraction of the act. But these infractions may extend back over three to five years, and no one can prove, if he is in business, that every single transaction back over that period complied with the terms of the act, because he will not have all the records to show it. Virtually all the crown has to do is to lay a charge, and he cannot prove his own innocence, and therefore he will be found guilty. That will be the result of section 58 in many cases.
I feel that it is time we in parliament objected to what is in effect a change in the principles of the criminal law and in the procedure under the criminal code. Members of parliament should take a stand in defence of the rights of individuals who were placed under so many regulations passed by this and other boards that, although the legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" still exists, it is utterly impossible to know what the law is. When we follow that up by saying, "Whether you know the law or not, and whether you intended to break it or not, you shall be found guilty and the crown shall not have to prove the intent", I submit we are introducing a very bad principle. I ask the minister whether he is prepared to delete this section.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I may say a word at this point to explain the reasons. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that the provisions of this section have nothing to do

Foreign Exchange Control
acts when he said that they conferred similar unlimited terms. They do not. I agree that a defendant acting on probable cause should be protected, but I cannot see how anyone could justify a situation wherein a defendant who has proceeded unfairly may defend himself by citing to the judge that he was acting on behalf of some one superior to him. It opens the door to the interference with private rights, and it gives a sense of security to offending officials which I submit is not justified. You might just as well go as far as regulation 39 did during the war and say that there is no right of action at all. However, that would have been too direct and too startling. Instead of saving that, provision is made that a person while technically having the right of recourse to the courts, has in reality no rights against a wrongdoer. I want to see the law enforced, but I do not want to see administrative officers becoming the masters of the people because of the reliance they will be able to place on a section such as this, which gives them unlimited and unrestricted power to interfere with private rights. I appeal to the minister-I will do no more than that-to consent to an amendment deleting that portion of subsection 2 beginning with the word "or" and ending with the word "instructions", so that the subsection would read:
If in any action, suit or proceeding to which this section applies the court or judge before whom the trial takes place certifies that the defendant acted upon probable cause, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to more than nominal damages nor to any costs of suit, nor, in case of a seizure, shall the person who made the seizure oe liable to any civil or criminal proceedings on account thereof.
The effect of the amendment would be to make the section the same as it is in the Customs Act and in the Excise Act. The minister felt it was the same until I brought it to his attention this afternoon. Apparently he had been so instructed. I appeal to him that parliament should not go further in giving that immunity to public officials which the subsection in its present form will confer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sympathetic to my
hon. friend's amendment, but perhaps I should tell him why these words were put in the bill. The board acts, as he knows, in large measure through the managers of branch banks. The banks act. as agents for the board, and it was felt that to afford reasonable protection to the branch banks, which act merely as agents for the board, these words should be put in. I do not think it really adds to the protection which is afforded under the Customs Act. Under the Customs Act the officers
are all government employees, but in the administration of the affairs of the board we have to have a good many outside agents. Every chartered bank and its branches are agents for the purpose of issuing or refusing permits, and so on. I do not think this is an arbitrary or excessive power, and I should be reluctant to strike it out of the bill, for the reason which I have given.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister
let the subsection stand and give consideration to the amendment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to
do that.


John Thomas Hackett: My very brief observations will have to do with the following section, and I am going to ask the minister if he would be willing to consider my suggestion also at the same time. Section 55 gives immunity to any officer who has attempted to effect a seizure of the property and has found out after making the attempt that there was no property there to seize. Has the minister considered whether it lies within the power of this parliament to impinge to the extent that the section seems to impinge upon property and civil rights? If I have been damaged by a person, he is liable to me for those damages and the rule in the province in which the minister practices is that a person can only disinculpate himself if he can establish that he has exercised reasonable care; the mere instructions of a senior officer are not sufficient to give immunity to the police officer who arrests a person without reason. I am going to ask the minister, when he is considering the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre, to consider and advise the committee whether the powers of parliament have not been exceeded in the enactment of the following section 55.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised not. This section is in effect the same as section 162 of the Customs Act, which has been in that act for a great many years. I am satisfied that it is within the legislative competence of parliament. My hon. friend's point is slightly different from the one raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre, although it resembles it.
Subsection 1 of section 54 agreed to.
Subsection 2 stands.
Section stands.
Sections 55 to 57 inclusive agreed to.
Foreign Exchange Control

think my hon. friend intended to imply this, but if the penal provisions are enforced and an individual is fined or sentenced to imprisonment there would be an appeal in the ordinary way. There is no suggestion that that form of appeal is taken away under the bill.
With the exceptions which I have mentioned, the three cases where appeal to the courts is provided, the decisions of the board would concern principally the granting or refusing of applications for permits and the like; in other words, the exercise of discretionary power. No one knows better than my hon. friend that where a person is given discretion, whether it be a minister or a municipal council, to issue permits, the courts do not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown it was not exercised in a bona fide manner or was influenced by improper motives. That is a well recognized principle.
Mostly the matters in which these discretions are exercised have to do with administration. In cases where the liberty of the subject is involved, in cases where there is a question of fact such as the fair value of property, in cases where the board has made a prohibition under section 49 to deal with property or where currency has been forfeited, there is an appeal, first to the board, then to the minister and finally to the courts. In these discretionary and administrative matters the appeal is from the authorized agent in the first place, if it is a customs officer or a bank, to the board and then from the board to the minister.
I do not agree with my hon. friend that appeals to the minister in cases of this kind are futile. I have had a few personal experiences of this kind; I know that there is opportunity for the minister to review administrative decisions, and on occasion they have been overruled. I suppose it is only fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the minister would confirm the exercise of discretion by the board. That would probably be because he agreed that it was wisely exercised.


John George Diefenbaker: How many appeals were there in the last three years, and in how many cases did the minister reverse the order made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told by the secretary of the board that there were no appeals from the board to the minister.


John Thomas Hackett: Have not those appeals been given up since the Pioneer Laundry case?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was a question as to the exercise of a discretion. It has been a
[Mr. Abbott.1
well-recognized legal principle for years that the courts do not interfere with the proper exercise of discretion.


John Thomas Hackett: That is quite true, but the minister will recall that the privy council held in the Pioneer case-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am familiar with that case.


John Thomas Hackett: -that that was a judicial discretion and that the discretion should be exercised only for legal and judicial reasons; that the arbitrary exercise of discretion was illegal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is true. As I said once in this house when referring to the Pioneer Laundry case, the mistake made by the commissioner of income tax was in giving his reasons.	[DOT]


John Thomas Hackett: He attempted to give them in a subsequent case, and you know what the court of appeal in British Columbia did to that?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28 (2)-Board may prohibit, or impose conditions on transfers between nonresidents.
William Ross Macdonald: Hon. members will recall that section 28 (2) was allowed to stand until we considered section 35. Is it agreeable that we carry section 28 (2) ?
Subsection agreed to on division.
Section 28 agreed to.
Sections 38 to 47 inclusive agreed to.
Section 48 agreed to on division.
Sections 49 to 53 inclusive agreed to.
On section 54-No action until one month after notice.


John George Diefenbaker: I referred to this section a while ago, and I am not going to repeat what I said. This is the section that absolves and frees a person from any action, however illegal, however unjustified and however tyrannical it may be, who is able to say that a member of the board or an inspector, had instructed him whether verbally or in writing, so to act. I looked up every act and every regulation I could find, and never before has the government asked that a person who acts beyond the powers of a law, who diminishes or destroys the rights of an individual, shall be able to offer as a defence that somebody his senior instructed him so to act. Apparently the minister had not read the Excise Act, or the Customs Act, or he was following the advice of advisers who had not read those

Foreign Exchange Control
be followed here. If you are providing for an appeal to the minister, what is your position? In that regard the report of Lord Sankey's commission, which was tabled in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and has since been accepted as a cardinal contribution to the maintenance of the liberty of the subject, has this to say:
In future legislation parliament should proceed on the principle that no minister (in which word we include any officer of a minister acting under his orders) should give a judicial decision in any dispute ... in which departmental interest prevails. If such cases appear likely to arise, parliament should provide for determination of the dispute by a ministerial tribunal functioning independently of the minister.
If you are going to deny that right of appeal, your position is this. If there is no appeal the servant is indeed the master, for the appeal is to the master. An appeal to the minister is merely illusory and a formality; in addition, an appeal to the minister places him in the position of being a judge in his own cause. There is also a further point in that connection, that a person should not be condemned unheard, that he has a right to equality under the law and to the application of the principle that one shall not be discriminated against unfairly within any one class. All these provisions and recommendations of the Sankey commission are set at naught by section 37, which simply provides that there is no appeal except to the minister which, at the risk of reiteration, I say is an appeal to the person concerned himself. It is interesting to read what the Sankey report has to say with regard to appeals to the minister from the decision of an administrative board:
Indeed we think it is clear that bias from strong and sincere conviction as to public policy may operate as a more serious disqualification than pecuniary interest. No honest man acting in a judicial capacity allows himself to be influenced by pecuniary interest; if anything, the danger is likely to be that through fear of yielding to motives of self-interest he may unconsciously do an injustice to the party with which his pecuniary interest may appear to others to identify him. But the bias to which a public-spirited man is subjected if he adjudicates in any case_ in which he is interested on public grounds is more subtle and less easy for him to detect and resist.
We are here considering questions of public policy and from the public point of view it is important to remember that the principle underlying all the decisions in regard to disqualification by reason of bias is that the mind of the judge ought to be free to decide on purely judicial grounds and should not be directly or indirectly influenced by, or exposed to the influence of, either motives of self-interest or opinions about policy or any other considerations not relevant to the issue.
We are of opinion that in considering the assignment of judicial functions to ministers parliament should keep clearly in view the
maxim that no man is to be judge in a cause in which he_ has an interest . . . Parliament would do well in such a case to provide that the minister himself should not be the judge, but that the case should be decided by an independent tribunal.
These views, as expressed by this commission which was representative of the greatest leader of both British houses of parliament and of the bench, deserve consideration. I realize that the minister takes the view that certain control is necessary in order that this legislation may be carried into effect, but surely any person whose rights are unjustly interfered with should have a right to appeal beyond the minister. I can see no reason why a question of one's liberty or of one's rights as a citizen should not be subject to appeal, while in connection with monetary matters there should be an appeal to the exchequer court. On the one hand the individual has no appeal when rights are swept aside. On the other hand if a question arises as to the fair value of any property, debt, obligation, claim or service, then there is the right of appeal to the exchequer court.
I ask the minister in what way this control would be interfered with if those who administer the law, the servants of the people, were to realize that when they did wrong or acted unfairly there would be a right on the part of the aggrieved person to appeal to the courts as is provided in section 38? I can do no more than say that, however desirous he may be to perpetuate these controls, surely he should be as anxious and as zealous to assure those whose rights are interfwed with unfairly a right of recourse to the courts without which there can be no justice or equality under the law.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be very glad to say a word on this question of appeal. I know my hon. friend will believe me when I say that I am just as anxious as he is that appeals to our courts should not be unduly curtailed. I hold with him that legislation which takes away from the subject the right of appeal to the courts in a proper case is not proper legislation.
Under this proposed measure there are three cases in which an appeal to the courts is provided. First, there is the case of the determination of fair value of property under section 38; second, there is an appeal from a prohibition made by the board under section 49 on dealings with a person's property in order to ensure the carrying out of the provisions of the act, and, third, there is an appeal from a decision of the board forfeiting currency valued at not over $100 which has been dealt with contrary to the act. I do not
Foreign Exchange Control

sections and the remainder would be handled by regulation. The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the British measure as being passed by a socialist government. Let me tell the committee that in England the foreign exchange control provisions are still being administered under emergency powers enacted by the previous government, which was not a socialist government. They have not brought into parliament a special statute as we have here, subjecting the board to the control of the minister, in that case the chancellor of the exchequer. This measure is an attempt to combine the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to parliament with ' the wide administrative discretion which must be given to a board to exercise powers which we believe are in the interests of the Canadian people.


John Thomas Hackett: In Britain are the powers not exercised under a statute which was passed by the present government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I am informed they are powers which were exercised under emergency orders in council, or whatever is the equivalent over there, passed under the Emergency Powers Act, enacted by the previous government.


John Thomas Hackett: By act of parliament.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just a short enabling bill of two or three sections. It is all covered by regulation. As I say, if we had followed the practice there we would have brought in a short bill of two or three enabling sections and then done it all by regulation. Instead of that we have brought in a bill in which we are trying to spell out in as complete terms as possible the powers which we believe the board should exercise. In a measure of this kind it is obviously easy to point out that broad powers are conferred on the board. My answer is that the powers must necessarily be broad. The very essence of exchange control is control. It is unfortunate that we must have control; nevertheless I am profoundly convinced, and the government is convinced; in view of the conditions under which the world finds itself to-day, it is essential unless we are to leave the thing wide open. I dealt with that yesterday. We have to provide working machinery to do it. That is what we are trying to do in this bill.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.

On section 37-Appeals.
John George Diefenbaker: In the matter of appeals, Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the minister to brush the matter aside and say you must have power, and you must have unnecessary power, in order to carry out the provisions of the law; but I do ask the minister to give consideration to this matter. He has spoken of the situation in Great Britain. In that country since the war, under the present government-and you can follow this through day by day-when any matter has come before the House of Commons involving wartime restrictions against appeals, invariably those restrictions have been removed, to the end that the subject may be assured an opportunity to secure justice. Look at this section. It provides for an appeal to the minister against every matter, order or declaration made by this board, and that when an appeal is made from the employee of the minister to the minister, the decision of the minister shall be final. In 1930 a committee of the British parliament was set up under the chairmanship of the lord high chancellor with a view to looking into this whole question of the maintenance of the right of appeal to the courts; and I cannot conceive of any justification for an arbitrary declaration of a board not being subject to appeal to the courts. In that there is nothing which would interfere with control; for if the decision is legal it will be upheld. If on the other hand it is illegal, the order of the board never should have been made and should be reversed. The only reason for which an appeal can be opposed is that the board is afraid that on appeal its decisions might not be supported; and in these days when it is so necessary to assure a degree of justice to everyone, and to assure that justice is done, I submit that the opinion expressed not too long ago by the lord chief justice of Great Britain is applicable and pertinent at this time. He said:
Amid the cross-currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the law courts, at any rate, he can get justice.
I appeal to the minister on this matter. I know he has the support of the majority behind him in whatever stand he takes; but I suggest that where, as in this act, the servant if he acts illegally may indeed be the master and where there is no supervisory jurisdiction on the part of the courts of the land against arbitrary or illegal interference with rights, what is followed in Great Britain might well

Foreign Exchange Control
should not be too technical about the details of its administration. Evidently the government is willing to take the responsibility for the administration of this board, and if in the future we find that some of the things they do are not right, we shall have the opportunity to criticize them.
If it is in order I should like to refer to a newspaper clipping to indicate why I am surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Speaking to the Toronto Conservative business men's club in 1942, he is reported, under the heading of "Advises Tories to Modernize" to have said: I do not know whether they took his advice, but referring to the challenge of the C.C.F. and the Liberal party he said:
The Conservative party must meet this challenge that comes to it and show the people that our economic system shall continue to be one of free enterprise under stringent control.
These are his words. If the hon. member wants a free enterprise system under stringent control, I am not going to argue with him about it. I think that is what we are getting. According to the argument used by the hon. member for Stanstead-and I respect his views [DOT]-he wants unrestricted private enterprise. These may not be his exact words, but I believe it is his political philosophy. If we were to follow that to its logical conclusion we would not have free enterprise at all. We would have monopoly capitalism. If we are to have controls-and we seem to agree that there should be some controls; I do not say we should have stringent control such as advocated by the hon. member for Lake Centre-we should have controls which can be removed by the action of this parliament. Any powers that we give to a board under this legislation will eventually come back for review where there is power to remove them if we dislike them.
Let us never forget that we have controls at all times. The lack of legislation does not mean the lack of controls, financial or otherwise. The controls are always there. Somebody is always manipulating our monetary system. Someone is manipulating the finances of this country. Somebody must be in control or else we would have only chaos. We must either choose the controls which we can remove if we do not like them, or we must accept control by private interests.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a word to say before the amendment is put. The hon. member for Lake Centre, who is not given to understatement, in his comments on this section to-day has almost excelled himself. I have heard him express the views on other measures which have been brought before parliament.
63260-286J


John George Diefenbaker: Which were
changed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not for one moment question the sincerity of these views. I admit that the powers which are conferred by this bill are broad. I am not prepared to say that they are the widest powers ever conferred by parliament on administrative bodies. My experience is not sufficient to enable me to make that categorical assertion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are not half as broad as those conferred in 1934.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I say that they are broad powers; but here is the position. The government believes that exchange control is necessary in the interests of the Canadian people. That being so, the question arises as to how that control is to be exercised. The government feels that it can be best exercised in the interests of the people of Canada by the administrative body which was set up during the war to exercise it, namely, the foreign exchange control board, and it believes that the Canadian people are prepared to accept administration by that board.
In passing a bill of this kind it is impossible to spell out in detail all the powers which such an administrative board will require. After most careful consideration we came to the conclusion that the policy which must be followed would be to confer upon the board broad powers, subject, of course, to their being approved by the governor in council and1 to appropriate publicity being given to them; to give the board broad powers and them to permit those powers to be varied by regulation as was done during the war. For example, the regulation which is being suggested here to declare that a non-resident shall be a resident or a resident a non-resident is a case in point. Let me give an example of that. During the war and to-day a number of United States citizens are residents who have come to Canada for a year, two years, or three years to do special work. .Now, technically, on coming here they become residents of Canada, but it has been always felt that it would not be fair to subject that class of persons- those who were not here before the war-to the operations of foreign exchange control restrictions; therefore by regulation the board, the administrative body, is given the power to exempt them from the provisions of the act. It seems to me that that is an eminently reasonable provision.
I do not deny for a moment that the powers which are given to this board are extensive, but my submission is that of necessity they must be. If this bill were being put forward in the British parliament I venture to say it would consist of two or three enabling
Foreign Exchange Control

asked to set up a board to overrule the laws it has passed. It is the first time that parliament has given a board power to overrule the laws passed here. No one will know what the law is if we pass this section. The board can change the law at any time. To give a board such powers is to violate a fundamental principle of democratic government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I read a section from the act passed by my hon. friends opposite. Quoting from Hansard of May 21, 1934, page 3256, in the discussion of the marketing act:
Every local board established hereunder-
Listen to this Tory perfidy.
-shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: *-until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
That is Toryism. That is the Tory party.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I intend to say a few words in reply, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before we are called upon to vote on the amendment I think I should say a word or two. I have been listening patiently and not saying anything in order to facilitate the work of the house. I understood when I came here that if we refrained from speaking it would expedite business, but evidently someone gave me a wrong steer, because, according to the way things have worked out, if we refrain from speaking some other members regard our silence as meaning consent and spend their time making attacks on us. I would not say anything at all except that hon. members to my right-and the members I refer to are among those I admire most in that group-have repeatedly referred to the C.C.F. in this argument. Why they bring us in I do not know. I for one was not consulted by the government before they drew up this legislation. I do not know whether my colleagues were. We are simply considering what has been placed before the house, and why the official opposition insists on giving us credit for everything the government brings forward that is of any value I do not know.
The member for Stanstead, the member for Muskoka-Ontario and the member for Lake Centre are the gentlemen to whose arguments I refer. I have a great deal of admiration
TMr. Hazen.]
for their ability; but the more they speak the more I find myself at a loss to know where they stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They don't stand; they fall.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not wish to become personal or to criticize them because I admire their ability and I respect their views. But the member for Stanstead is opposed to the bill holus-bolus; the member for Muskoka-Ontario is opposed to some of its provisions, and only to-day the member for Lake Centre gets up and says he admits the necessity for the board.


John George Diefenbaker: I never said any such thing.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He admits the necessity for it-


John George Diefenbaker: That was one time you were not listening.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I accept his denial, but I am sure the record will bear me out.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Don't scratch it out of Hansard to-morrow.


William Ross Macdonald: May I interrupt to point out to the hon. member for Dauphin that he is referring to a debate which took place within the last few days and which frequently dealt with the principle of the bill. I feel it my duty to remind members of the committee that they must make their remarks relevant to the section under consideration and not discuss the principle. The committee will agree with me, I think, that the time for a general discussion has come to an end and that remarks now should be strictly relevant to the section before us. I would ask the member for Dauphin to be good enough to relate his remarks to the section and not refer to the remarks of other members with reference to the principle of the bill.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He can't get in propaganda under the section.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman. This section deals with regulations which I understand are based on the principle of the bill, and I am only following the line of argument used by the member for Lake Centre when I refer to some of his remarks. I hope I shall stay within the four corners of the rule.
The impression I had, listening to the member for Lake Centre, was that he felt there was need for such a board as this. He is nodding his head. He admits that. If we are to have a foreign exchange control board, if we admit that it is necessary, then I think we

Foreign Exchange Control


John George Diefenbaker: Well, after all, sir, before a person can set forth his amendment he has to set forth the circumstances making it necessary. We are not in the same position as the government, who can hand their friends a dish of crow and say, "Take it or leave it". We have to advance reasons why there should be a change in the law. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John-Albert:
That paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 36, subsection 1, be deleted.
In consequence there would be a renumbering of the subsequent paragraphs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether any other hon. member cares to speak to the amendment. If so, it may save time if 1 wait until all hon. members who wish to discuss it have spoken.


William Irvine: The hon. gentleman who moved this amendment told the committee frankly that he did not understand the section. I think he took a little more time than was necessary to prove that. I was interested in the discussion which took place arising out of some of his remarks, reference having been made to a certain bill with similar clauses which was passed by a previous parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were not similar at all.


William Irvine: I am glad to say I supported that bill, and some of the strongest artillery on the side of the present government opposed it. To my mind that was one of the best pieces of legislation ever put on the statute books of Canada. Here we have one of the best pieces of legislation which this government has ever brought forward, and it is being opposed by the heaviest artillery on the other side. I am glad, Mr. Chairman, to realize that I have been right both times.


Douglas King Hazen: In rising to support the
amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre I feel there is little I can add to the statements he has made. He has gone thoroughly into the matter and has pointed out very clearly the reasons why these clauses should be removed from section 35 of the bill. The day before yesterday, when section 23 of the bill was before the committee, I pointed out that a business man would be precluded from paying or handing money to a tourist. The minister said in reply that this was correct, but he added that it was or would be covered by regulations. His statement and mine will 63260-286
be found on Hansard at page 4452. I read the section of the bill and I said:
In view of that part of the section which I have read, and that definition, is not a business man in this country precluded from paying money or handing any money to a tourist who comes in here? As I read the section, that is one of its effects.
The minister said: "Theoretically my hon. friend is correct." I take it from that statement that he meant I am right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is covered by the
regulation, as my hon. friend knows.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister continued:
That, of course, is covered by regulation. That is an obvious case in which there should be the general rule, and payments to tourists are accepted from that general provision.
I was surprised by that answer. As I understand it, what it means is that when the members of this house have passed a law which has a clear meaning, the board can change the law by regulation.
Surely things are coming to a strange pass in this country when a thing like that can happen. I recall reading some time ago-I have since looked it up-Lewis Carroll's classic. When Alice took exception to Hump-ty Dumpty defining the word "glory" as meaning "a nice knock-down argument," Humpty Dumpty replied in rather scornful tones, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". But "the question is whether you can make words mean so many different things," Alice objected; and Humpty Dumpty replied, "The question is, which is to be the master- that is all."
The question here, it seems to me, is, who is to be master? Are members of parliament to be master, or is the board?


An hon. MEMBER:: Surely.


Douglas King Hazen: An hon. gentleman suggests that members of the House of Commons are to be the master, and so they should. But under this section the board by regulation can change the laws that we make here. Let me refer to the section again. Section 35 makes the board the master. It is provided that the board may make regulations, and when we turn to paragraph (e), taking the two together, we read:
The board may make regulations notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this act, exempting any person or any class of persons . . . from any provision of this act.
Surely that is going altogether too far. This is the first time, as the member for Lake Centre pointed out, that parliament has been

Foreign Exchange Control

faith in carrying out such instructions, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to more than nominal damages.
They have extended the freedom of the board by those extra words, so that this board and everyone acting not only under the board but under an inspector is free from prosecution if he is able to say "I did wrong; I am sorry about it, but I did it in good faith because Inspector Jones told me to do it." That is the end . of the action so far as the liberty of the subject is concerned. There is the difference.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A distinction without a
difference.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I submit that if the subsection is passed in its present form it simply amounts to this, that you substitute the interpretation, the will or the action of an individual or of the board for a statute passed by parliament. If you pass that subsection in its present form and give those powers to a board uncontrolled and untrammelled, I ask you where is responsible government in this country? Admitting the necessity for a board, admitting the necessity for regulations in respect of routine matters, why should we place the servants of the people above the law of the land, so that each in turn can say, "It was somebody else that led me astray. I got the order from the man immediately above me." To do that is to make a mockery of responsible government.
Yes, you have a servant of the people who is the master of the people, and free from any supervisory jurisdiction by the courts against arbitrary, unlawful and unfair interferences with private rights. There is not an hon. member who can read this section without seeing what it means. I have no objection to ihe first part of it. An officer must have some protection, but let him have the same protection as has been granted to any officers in the past-that they are acting upon probable cause. Do not let this parliament go to the point that no matter what right is trampled upon, the individual when he goes to court to try to rectify what has. been done against him unfairly in the matter of trespass, can be answered by an official who says, "Well, if I did wrong I did it in good faith, because somebody higher than I told me to do it" the old excuse right from Eden down.
When I first heard the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario speak about the effect of this provision I asked myself, can it be so? Then I heard the hon. member for St. John-Albert reciting the unfairnesses which had taken place. You could not touch these officials during the war. They made their
flvlr. Diefenbaker.]
own regulations then. They were honest enough in those regulations to say that you could not do anything but take what you got. This is the wording of the old section:
No person shall have any rights or any remedies against and no action shall lie or be brought against any person in respect of any act or omission of such person on or after the 16th September. 1939, which was required or which he believed in good faith would have been required by this order or by regulations or instructions of the board.
In other words, you did not have any rights. They did not want to put it in that way, so they altered it a bit and used these words to the effect that the defendant is absolved if "he was proceeding under written or verbal instructions" of his superior. I again point out that nothing like this appears in the Customs Act, in the Excise Act, or in any other act I have been able to find, i looked at the statutes my hon. friend mentioned because I thought he would know which one contained such a provision. Are there any other acts I should refer to? I should like to know. I have not been able to find them.
Without regard to the merits or necessity or lack of necessity of this legislation, has the time not come for this parliament to put a stop to the administrative lawlessness which the passage of such an order in council permits? Parliament alone can do it. The individual member of parliament can do it. It is not a matter of any other consideration than a facing of the issue. To-day in this parliament we are asked to do something which we have never been asked to do before 

to give a servant, however far down in importance in the work he does in the department, the power to determine for you and for me your rights and my rights. The only appeal is an appeal to the minister-and I will deal with that, when we come to question of appeals, by indicating what a British judge recently said with regard to the impropriety of appeals being to the minister. And we are denied the right to go to the courts, however unfair the action may have been. During the war arbitrary rulings were made by various boards. They had a job to do in war time, and all honour to those who served and did those jobs at that time. Arbitrary rulings were made, and they were accepted, and a man's right of appeal and of recourse to the courts was taken away. But, sir, when you take away all right of recourse to the courts, place uncontrolled power in the hands of any individual or board, you deny freedom and equality and justice to the individual. I therefore wish to move an amendment-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Part of the filibuster.

Foreign Exchange Control
There is one small recourse. Ordinarily when you are treated arbitrarily and trespass has been committed against you, you could go to the courts. That is all over now. If my rights are interfered with, all the defendant has to do, if I sue him, is to say that he was proceeding under written or verbal instructions of the board or of an inspector and was acting in good faith in carrying out those instructions. In other words I go to the courts for the purpose of establishing my rights against these unfair and discriminatory orders. Trespass has been committed against me.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How do you trespass against the foreign exchange control board?


John George Diefenbaker: Look at the rights which the inspectors have. If they do not amount to trespass, I do not know what does. I am sure that my hon. friend was speaking jocularly, as he answers many questions in the house. He did not mean that seriously. Because trespass is exactly what that action is-an unfair interference with my rights.
What happens? I go to the courts. All that the defendant has to do is to say that an inspector told him to do that verbally-not even in writing-and my rights disappear. All I can get is nominal damages, and no costs for having brought the matter to court. Such a section has never before been enacted in this country. I pause to give my hon. friend the opportunity to say what he said last night and two or three times yesterday, that such a section appears in the Excise Act and in the Customs Act. Never before has that section been incorporated in our statutes to deny the rights of individuals. It is neither in the Excise Act nor in the Customs Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend look at sections 157-160 of the Customs Act?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I have them here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have them too.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; we will read them together, and that will show that my hon. friend has not read them because such a section is not in the Customs Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Suppose you read them before you make assertions. Read section 157, under the heading, "Protection of officers."


John George Diefenbaker: Section 157 reads:
No action, suit or proceeding shall be commencedand so on.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I will read it for my legal friend from Halton.
No action, suit or proceeding shall be commenced, and no writ shall be sued out against, or copy of any process served upon any officer-
And so on.


Hughes Cleaver: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not leaving out any material part.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -or person employed for the prevention of smuggling, for anything done in the exercise of his office, or duty-


John George Diefenbaker: All right; let us get
back to what I am saying.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As Mr. Gladstone used to . say, read on.


John George Diefenbaker: The laughter indicates that my hon. friend the minister is not the only one who has not read this section. Section 157, subsection 1, provides that no action against an officer shall be token while a proceeding is pending nor until one month after notice. Subsection 2 sets out what the notice shall state. Subsection 3 sets out what the evidence shall be. Section 158 sets out in subsection 1 that the defendant may tender amends; subsection 2 deals with what may be done if the amends are sufficient. Subsection 3 deals with costs and subsection 4 with payment into court. Section 159 deals with the limitation of time. Then I come to section 160, and that is different from the section to which I have been referring. Section 160 says:
If, in any such action, suit or proceedings, the court or judge before whom the trial takes place certifies that the defendant acted upon probable cause, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to more than twenty cents damages nor to any costs of suit, nor in case of a seizure, shall the person who made the seizure be liable to any civil or criminal suit or proceedings on account thereof.
The section in the Customs Act and the section in the Excise Act provide that if the defendant carrying out a public duty does so on probable cause, then in that case he is absolved from damages. But the board was not satisfied with that section. The board thought that it did not give them sufficient protection, and so here is the section which they now place before parliament. This is subsection 2 of section 54:
If in any action, suit or proceeding to which this section applies the court or judge before whom the trial takes place certifies that the defendant acted upon probable cause-
It is the same up to that point, but then these words are added:
[DOT]-or, if the defendant was proceeding under written or verbal instructions of the board or an inspector, that the defendant acted in good

Foreign Exchange Control


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally I would not concede that, because this is the high water mark that is before parliament now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You cannot have it both ways.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Lake Centre has answered the question of the
Minister of Veterans Affairs. May I remind hon. .members of the committee that a discussion of the .powers of some other board is not relevant to the discussion here. We do not know what powers are given to other boards. The committee is considering the regulations as set forth in section 35. I would ask all hon. .members to make their discussion strictly relevant to this section.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am trying hard to keep on the track, but my hon. friend is endeavouring to get me away from my argument. Where was parliament asked before, under the marketing act referred to by my bon. friend or anywhere else, to give to a board the power to say that no matter what is in a statute it can be changed by the board? Never before was parliament asked, first to define what a resident means, and then to give a board the power, indicated by (d) of section 35:
(d)1 prescribing that persons who would otherwise be residents shall be deemed to be nonresidents.
*Can you understand that? I have heard that parliament is all-powerful, that it can do everything but make a man a woman; yet here parliament is to give to a board the power to declare a non-resident a resident, or a resident a non-resident. That is what this section says. It places in .the hands of the board, untrammelled and uncontrolled, the right to determine as between individuals and to discriminate in favour of one at the expense of the other.
You may say: If there are safeguards, then what is the harm? If we pass this section in its present form, what is the right? Is there a right of appeal? Can a person aggrieved secure his rights by showing that the board has gone beyond its powers? No, not under this legislation. There is no appeal; there is no control against the rulings made under this section.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is an appeal under section 37.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, an appeal, but to the minister-from the hired man to the boss. That is the very thing that has been asked for in the United Kingdom from 1932 on, from the time a report was made to parliament in that regard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no appeal under the marketing act.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the only act my hon. friend has ever heard about is the marketing act. I have that act here, and I will deal with it if you will permit me, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: The only way it could be dealt with would be to show that the regulations under that act were exactly the same as the regulations under this act. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Lake Centre when he was answering the question; it was only after he had answered it that I drew the attention of the committee to the fact that we are dealing with the powers of the board under his bill.


John Bracken: Why did you not stop the minister?


William Ross Macdonald: I thought it was only fair to allow the hon. member for Lake Centre to answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Unfortunately I
have not got to the answer yet; when I start to give the answer, my hon. friend does not want it. I have the act before me, and the powers of that board were strictly limited to the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act. This bill does not limit the powers of the board to make regulations within the act; it gives power to the board to make regulations outside the act, beyond the act, in spite of the act, and contrary to the act, Those are the material differences between the two pieces of legislation.
My hon. friend says:	Oh yes, there is an
appeal; and he refers me to section 37. Yes, there is an appeal to the minister from decisions made by a board appointed on the recommendation of the minister to carry out an act administered by the minister. In other words, except for the appeal on the question of the amount in dispute under section 38, however arbitrarily the board may act, however unjustifiably or tyrannically its inspectors may act it is futile to go to court against them because the board will be fortified by a defence that has never before been incorporated in a Canadian statute in a time of peace. I do not understand this section 54 to which my hon. friend referred the other night. I am showing what the powers of 'the board will be. Suppose I am interfered with unfairly, that my rights are infringed, my privileges destroyed, and I appeal to the minister. Well, he will say, what can I do? Change the order? Would he do that, he himself having appointed the board or being responsible for it?

Foreign Exchange Control
peace time, to grant to a board power to say that no matter what is in a statute passed by this parliament, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this act where we provide for certain prohibitions and exemptions, for privileges, for the commission of offences and infractions, the board can come along and say to one man, "You do not come under it", but to another man, "You do". Parliament is asked to place in the hands of a board the power to discriminate against one class of business, or between one class and another or one individual and another. In other words no matter what the law of this land is, and regardless of what parliament says the law is under the statute, the board is placed above the law and may by regulation remake any part of the law to suit its purposes, its whims and its caprices.
My hon. friend said this was a Liberal speech. Mr. Chairman, parliament has a responsibility; that is why I make this appeal with respect to the section we are now considering. What do we do? We make a board set up by parliament the absolute judge of who shall be the beneficiary of its benevolence and who shall be the victim of its arbitrary discrimination. Where, in any parliament, should any board ask for power such as that? Can there be any argument that when a board has the power and right to discriminate as between individuals, to grant preference to one citizen as against another, the subjection of all persons to the law in equality disappears and arbitrary power is substituted for equality before the law?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,
before the recess I was dealing with the effect of section 35, subsections (d) and (e), and I had pointed to the absolute power that would be placed in the hands of the board under this bill as it now stands. It was suggested this morning that under this legislation, in effect, a socialistic viewpoint had been arrived at by the government, having regard to what has been done since the Prime Minister left. From the legislation that has been introduced in the house it is apparent that the government is on the socialist side, and when I say that I refer to this legislation.
The United Kingdom has similar legislation, but I would point out that the Attlee government, which is desirous of introducing socialism, has not given the power to any board to
make sucK regulations as are set out in section 35, free and uncontrolled by parliament. My hon. friend will say that a sop has been thrown to parliament by sections 2 and 3. All that sections 2 and 3 do is this: After the board is empowered to act as it chooses, to interpret the law as it may, any regulation that is passed shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after it has met, and is effective only when approved by the governor in council. These are not sufficient safeguards. It still remains within the power of the board to go contrary to the law as set forth in the bill. This is something I cannot understand. It defines what resident is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my hon. friend read the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act passed by the Bennett government?


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard that repeated and repeated. I have read it. One of its greatest opponents was my hon. friend.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


John George Diefenbaker: No? He just voted against it, that is all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Spoke against it for four weeks in this house and voted against it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am saying; he spoke against it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was the most vicious act ever introduced in this parliament. Talk about regulations and regimentation!


John George Diefenbaker: The only justification my hon. friend now advances as a member of the government is that what was wrong under one act-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was it wrong?


John George Diefenbaker: According to my hon. friend.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to my hon. friend, was it wrong?


John George Diefenbaker: That marketing legislation would have been advantageous to this country, but the government of which my hon. friend is a member took it before the courts, appointed lawyers for the purpose of saying to the courts that the legislation was not within the power of parliament, and had it declared ultra vires of this parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to interrupt; I have great appreciation and admiration for my hon. friend. Will my hon. friend not concede that the powers and regulations and regimentation and evasion of the supreme authority of parliament under that act were the most atrocious in the history of Canada?
Foreign Exchange Control

knows, but will not tell, which of its two officials was responsible for the destruction of shoes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to take exception to that. I do not know what was in the Montreal Star last night, because I have not seen it; but I can say now that the Department of National Defence was not responsible for this alleged condition, and has not refused to name any of its officials. I am prepared to make a full statement on this shoe business, but there is nothing in it. I shall make the statement at the appropriate time. This is not the time.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The committee is considering section 35, "Powers of the board to make regulations". I think the discussion should be related to the powers of the particular board concerned and not to boards generally.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest deference, I have no argument with that; but I have heard discussions going on around me in which I have not participated. A very wide range has been covered. This section dealing with powers of the board is very wide, and I thought that I would deal with all these matters at one time instead of rising regularly on this matter.


Mr. MUTCH:: There is something to be said for that.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the parliamentary assistant say?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Thanks for the promotion.


John George Diefenbaker: May I return to the section in question? In the last few months parliament has regained some of its powers. It did so last fall, as the result of a great deal of opposition on the part of the official opposition, and public opinion which was created at the time that many of the boards were asking for powers under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, some make their contribution by raucous interruption. I am trying to make an intelligent contribution to the question of the abdication of parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not on the
section.


John George Diefenbaker: I venture the opinion that my hon. friend has never even read the section, much less the act; yet he interrupts regularly. Under this section this board will regain, and it is apparently endeavouring

to regain in what is asked for here, many of the powers that these controllers and board members lost last fall, and which they are anxious to recover. I think the time has come for parliament, as far as this and succeeding sections are concerned, to call a halt once and for all to this wartime trend of making boards and controllers all-powerful; for unless it is stopped, it becomes a permanent institution.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is a good Liberal
speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I think it was the hon. member for Stanstead who said earlier to-day that Liberal speeches are no longer expected from the other side of the house.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There are still a few of us left.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have my hon. friend's support in this regard, and he will have an opportunity of voting on behalf of good Liberal principles when I introduce the amendment I intend to move in a moment. In this section parliament is asked to abdicate its legislative power and hand it over to this board. Let me refer to the provisions. What are the powers parliament is asked to give under this section? As to subsections (a), (b) and (c) there can be no argument at all, 'because they cover regulations in matters of routine, and as such are necessary to the proper operation of any statute. Now we come to subsection (d) of section 35. This gives the board power to make regulations prescribing that persons who otherwise would be residents shall be deemed to be non-residents, or that persons who otherwise would be non-residents shall be deemed to be residents for any of the purposes of this act. What a power! We are going to define what a resident is and what a nonresident is; we have done so in the first portion of the act. Now a board is going to be able to determine by regulation that a person who is a resident under the act is a non-resident under a regulation. I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who said this is indeed the top; this is the apex of the grasp for power. This section gives the board power to determine when you are liable and when you are not, irrespective of the wording of the statute; but the board is not satisfied with that power. It is not enough to be able to make a resident into a non-resident or a non-resident into a resident by a simple regulation. They go on with subsection (e). I can find no other case in which parliament has ever been asked, in

Foreign Exchange Control
security. He showed how often that was the pretence under which boards received powers unexampled in the history of the country.
Under this bill we are asked to perpetuate in time of peace the powers of boards in time *of war. It was most significant that when the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario endeavoured to limit the period there was opposition by the government. I can see no great danger in limitation unless this kind of control is to become part and parcel of the peacetime life in Canada. Why should it not have been limited to a reasonable period and then continued by parliament? But not so. When I see some of the recent trends so far as boards are concerned I agree with the hon. member for Stanstead that if the government. does not intend to bring in socialism it is doing its best to lay the foundation and the framework for that purpose. I am sure hon. members on the other side of the house do not want to see that; certainly some of them do not.
When I look at the powers contained in section 35 I ask myself, what is the limit of the empowering of boards going to be? When this bill is passed we shall have a statute. Will anybody know what the law is then? In regard to many of the statutes passed by parliament to-day no one is able to advise on the law because power to make regulations, over and above the actual written word of the statutes, is placed in boards. Some will say to me: No, that cannot be; regulations have to be within the power of the legislation passed by parliament. That is not so. This is the first time that a government has asked parliament to set up a board to pass regulations contrary to a statute, ratifying them in advance. I admit that regulations are necessary in order to make matters of routine in a statute workable. Can any hon. member say that the making of regulations contrary to the provisions of a statute has any justification? I point out that that is being done under paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 35, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this act, exempting any person or any class of persons or any transaction or class of transactions from any provision of this act;


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a relieving measure, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; no matter what parliament has said shall be the law, the board has the power, as my hon. friend says, to relieve any person in Canada whom it may choose to single out for its benefits, to relieve
him or to single out an individual for its discrimination. It has the power to exempt any person from the application of this bill.
What about boards? I do not know whether my hon. friends on the other side of the house know-I am sure they do-that to-day the common man is beginning to realize that there cannot be justice and equality under a system of boards controlling the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Marketing controls.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall give you a few examples in the last few months. Take the War Assets Corporation. A big investigation took place in Montreal to ascertain where all the shoes came from which were destroyed. War Assets Corporation investigated the matter and concluded that it was no officer of theirs who gave the orders. The Department of National Defence conducted an investigation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A thorough one, I may say.


John George Diefenbaker: They have the information to-day as to who was responsible. Does my hon. friend, as Minister of National Defence, deny that? I do not get an answer to that question, because-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is yes. The Minister of Reconstruction two or three weeks ago gave the press gallery the name of the person to whom the shipment of shoes was sold as scrap. He showed it to me; it was given to the gallery.


John George Diefenbaker: Well-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no objection to giving it.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me read from the Montreal Star of August 8.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I shall be delighted to discuss this matter of mutilated shoes or waste of assets at the appropriate time, but not under the foreign exchange control board, please. I can have my full data here. I have information. I had my personal assistant make an investigation into this matter some time ago. We have the whole picture, but this is not the time to discuss it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am giving an example of what these boards do. The heading of the section is "Powers of boards". At the moment I am dealing in general with the question of powers of boards, to indicate that parliament is being asked in this case to abdicate rights that it ought not to abdicate. According to the latest issue of the Montreal Star, the Department of National Defence
Foreign Exchange Control

spite of the plausible and able argument made by my good friend the member for Stanstead I am afraid he lives in a world that is different from the one in which I live. I agree with the minister that, the world being in the economic state in which it is, legislation such as this is necessary, at least for the present. However, section 33 is far-reaching in its subsections. You cannot release or fail to take reasonable steps to acquire or recover from a non-resident any property or any right, title or interest in or to any property to which the resident is or may be entitled. A man whose father died in the United States might be entitled to a share in the estate the deceased left. He might wish to assign his interest to his mother, which is a very reasonable and proper thing for a son to do, but he would not be able to do that unless he obtained- a permit. According to the next paragraph you cannot grant an unreasonable extension of time for payment of any debt owing by or any claim upon a non-resident, or fail to take reasonable steps to collect any such debt or to prose-cute any such claim. If he does n-ot wish to spend the -money to go to court for the reason that the debtor may be insolvent or on the eve of insolvency, he cannot refrain from taking steps to collect the debt unless he has a permit. The question I wish to ask is this. What formality will be required in order to -obtain a permit? Where will one be able to obtain it? Do we write to Ottawa, or go to the banker as at present in connection with small remittances? I suggest to the minister that full publicity should be given this new law. We should know what steps the government is taking to publicize it so that Canadians will know about it and not be guilty of infractions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the first question, the bank manager who ordinarily acts as -agent for the -board in ordinary transactions would not have authority to grant a permit for a transaction such as my hon. friend has referred to. Application would have to be made to the board. The usual practice would be to write direct to the board at Ottawa, or any bank manager would forward the letter, if desired, asking for permission. In a case such as my hon. friend cited, an estate, where the son wanted to assign his interest to his mother, if the circumstances were normal I am sure permission would be granted.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Would an affidavit be required?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should not think so. When I was doing some practice I found that all that was needed in most cases was a letter setting out the circumstances.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: How would the department determine whether the statement contained in the letter from the applicant was true?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If it appeared on its face to be plausible and reasonable it would be taken at its face value and accepted as true. If there were in it anything which aroused suspicion, I suppose the board might ask for further verification. I realize that this is only administration, but my experience with the operation of the board was that they were very flexible. There was no question of rules of evidence or affidavits, and every effort was made to facilitate the smooth and easy disposition of applications.


John Thomas Hackett: Where a substantial
amount was involved, definite proof was expected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree that if there were large amounts involved, obviously it would not be proper to accept a simple letter. One might want an audited statement, a certificate from a banker or something of that sort, but nothing that would involve out-of-the-way expense or research on the part of the applicant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 35-Board may make regulations.
John George Diefenbaker: I have not had anything to say in reference to this bill, but I have sat here and listened to the arguments advanced by the Acting Minister of Finance, and may I thank him at this point for having postponed consideration of section 28, subsection 2, dealing with the question of regulations, until consideration should take place of section 35. I have listened to the arguments advanced from the time the member for Muskoka-Ontario made his opening address, pointing out some of the dangers of this legislation, and as I view it, the greater the consideration that has been given to this bill the more significant -becomes the cogency of that hon. gentleman's argument.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was followed by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, who spoke against the tendency which was developed during the period of the war of placing controls in the hands of boards and always under the guise of necessity or of

Foreign Exchange Control
should go to the board for a permit to obey the ordinary dictates of human kindness, let hon. members tell that constituent and their constituents generally-


An hon. MEMBER:: We will tell them you are wasting the time of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the board, under that section, can make an interpretation against him, and that individual, if he is haled into court by the board, goes in with the obligation of satisfying the burden of proof, and in the second place is liable, under section 60, subsection 2, to a fine of $2,000 and twelve months' imprisonment, and let them tell their constituents that that is the kind of legislation that they are supporting in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Don't you worry. We have been here a longer time than you have.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If I employ a broker to sell goods for me in the United States, does the foreign exchange control board tell me what is a fair commission?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose that is governed by the custom of the trade, is it not? I imagine there is a standard commission for most commodities.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Leaving out of consideration the desirability or otherwise of foreign exchange control, it seems to me that the essential question at issue here is whether that section is necessary to enable foreign exchange control to work satisfactorily. My contention is that it is not necessary to do that, that it is entirely unnecessary, that it is just an extra red-tape annoyance and nuisance. The minister has not produced this morning any good and valid reasons why this particular section is necessary to the successful carrying on of foreign exchange control. Neither did Mr. Rasminsky, the expert, produce before the committee any good reasons for it. The only reason which was produced was that it would enable the board to prevent any citizen of this country from building up a foreign credit abroad and would force him to have the payment for his services, which if this section were not there he might keep in some foreign country, brought into Canada. The argument does not mean anything, because section 29, which we have already passed, gives the board power to force any resident of the country to bring into Canada any credit which he may have. Section 29 says:
Every resident who possesses, owns or controls any securities which, or the certificates or instruments representing which, are physicallylocated outside of Canada, shall, if so required by the board, cause the said securities, certificates or instruments to be brought into Canada.
With the board having that power, there is no reason, from the point of view of making foreign exchange control a success, to retain section 32. On the contrary,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Filibuster.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -it is very likely to prevent certain credits, which might be of very considerable value, particularly credits in the United States, from being built up in this country, because of the nuisance involved in doing so. As my amendment to delete this clause is ruled out of order I should like to have a vote on it.


Mr. MERRITT:: Sitting here listening to the discussion, it occurs to me that we have reached new heights in controls, because under this section you have to get a permit not to deal in foreign exchange, and therefore you have to get a permit in this country now to do nothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That does not apply to the Tory party. It needs no permit.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is hard on the opposition.


Douglas King Hazen: How does the minister
propose to enforce a law of this kind? If I see fit to render service to a friend of mine living outside the country and not to charge him for it, or if I see fit to do' some work for somebody living outside the country and I say to him, "You don't have to pay me for twelve months or until some later date when I send you a bill, a year or two from now", how will you prevent me from doing that? Are you not passing a law that will be wholly inoperative? How will you prevent me from doing these things if I want to do them? What is the good of having a law if you cannot enforce it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is simple.
Admittedly it would be difficult to enforce it in some cases, but we assume that the majority of law-abiding citizens will obey the law.
Section agreed to on division:	Yeas, 30;
nays, 24.
On section 33-Other transactions between residents and non-residents.
Mr. JAENI'CKE: I should like to ask three questions of the minister in connection with this clause and, I believe they will refer to any other sections which require a permit. First of all I might say that in
Foreign Exchange Control

But that is not all. We go a little further, and see, in the seventh place, that it is left to the foreign exchange control board to decide whether the undertaking has been to perform these services at less than the fair value of the services. Who is to determine the fair value of the services rendered by anybody within the w7ide scope of section 2, subsection l(w)? The foreign exchange control board.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is too bad.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And, number eight: payment must be "in a currency designated by the board as acceptable for such a transaction", and that, again, is for the decision of the board. It is obvious that an individual who has performed or entered into any kind of transaction just hasn't a chance. It is not a case of coming before a court; it is a case of having his transaction reviewed in all these respects by a board, the foreign exchange control board, whose decision in practically every respect is final.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us take a simple transaction to test the sense, if any, in a section of this kind. Suppose I have a friend in Scotland who writes to me and says, "Will you do such and such a service for me? I am pretty hard up right now; I don't know when I can pay you. You will just have to take that chance. I will pay you when I get the money, but I haven't it now and I don't know when I will have it." When I perform that service, it being a service ordinarily performed for remuneration, I cannot say to my friend in Scotland, "Don't worry; pay me whenever you like", without a permit from the foreign exchange control board.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quite right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot say to him, "Don't worry; pay me any time," without a permit.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are a man after my own heart.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or suppose I have a relative in France who writes to me and says, "Here is a service I should like you to perform." My relative in France has undergone hardships during the war, and I say, "I am not going to charge that relative of mine according to the full tariff", so I write and tell him, "Here is my bill for services performed; actually it is about one-third of what would be ordinarily charged."


Douglas Charles Abbott: You would not ordinarily charge your relatives, would you? They would be excepted from the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not an exception from this section. I could not in any cases of
[Mr. Fleming. 1
necessity or other circumstances, submit to a friend or relative anything less than the normal tariff charge without a permit from the board. If I did I would be committing an offence under this measure, and the board could put an inspector in and examine that whole transaction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall be coming to that to-morrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They could go through my books, examine me, put me under oath, as provided for under section 41. And that is not all. Suppose, as in the case I cited of a friend in Scotland, I told him that he could pay me whenever he likes or whenever he is able, and they are going to prosecute me, you will see under section 58 that the burden of proof is on me.


An hon. MEMBER:: I would say it is a good idea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Look at this section:
58. (1) Where any person is charged with an offence under this act, if it is established in proof of the offence that the said person did any act or omission for which a permit is required under this act, it shall not be necessary to establish in proof of the offence that the person charged did not possess a permit or had not been exempted from the applicable provisions of this act. and the burden of proof that he possessed the necessary permit or had been exempted from the applicable provisions of the act shall be upon the person charged.
I go into the court with another strike against me. The burden of proof is on me
to show that my case is one which under the terms of the act is an exemptable case.
That is not all. Look at section 60, subsection 2, and observe what follows in respect of penalties:
(2) Every person guilty of an offence under this act for which no penalty is provided under subsection one of this section-
Subsection (1) relates to property.
-shall be liable, on summary conviction under part XV of the criminal code, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that section 32?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 60, subsection 2. Will hon. members opposite restrain their mirth long enough to ask themselves this simple question. If a constituent of theirs so allows his judgment to be guided by the dictates of human kindness that, for the sake of assisting a friend in Scotland who has lost much during the war, he tells him, "You do not need to worry about paying me now; pay me whenever you like," and either does not know that he is committing an offence under the act or does not see any reason why he

Foreign Exchange Control
that provide for payment within six months", and so forth. You need no permit if you comply with that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I ask the minister whether he considers that clause, interpreted as he likes, necessary for the protection of the Canadian dollar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I do. Take my own case. When I was a practising lawyer, if I did a job for a client in New York and sent him a bill in United States dollars and it was payable in six months I did not have to consult the foreign exchange control board at all. I got a cheque in United States dollars and it went into the bank. If I were to give my client twelve months to pay, or wanted to be paid in Brazilian currency, I suppose I should have to get a permit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If it was not paid within six months. Does the minister consider the difference between six months and six months and a day so important as to justify this provision?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The same term applies to the sale of merchandise. I used the example of a bill submitted by a lawyer. My bill is payable on demand and in United States dollars; and if I sent the bill to my client in New York with a polite request for a remittance, I would not have to go near the foreign exchange control board at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will agree that lawyers very often do not get paid within six months, in which event does the minister think-
. Mr. ABBOTT: My bill must not give a longer term of payment than six months. If my client is not able to pay me within six months, that is my misfortune. But I cannot without a permit give him a term of twelve or sixteen or eighteen months within which to pay.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I would be in order under this section in referring to the arrest of a director of Fresnore Mines Limited in Toronto in the company's office on Temperance street, on a charge of receiving $100,000 under false pretences in 1945M6?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think that has anything to do with the exchange control board. It is another type of control.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot yet persuade myself that certain hon. members opposite can meekly submit to being parties to this kind of legislation. Let me reduce it to its simplest terms.
I suggest that this section has inherent in it this vice, that it puts power into the hands of the foreign exchange control board to make its own interpretations of the statute itself. Just what is involved in a decision of the foreign exchange control board under this section?
I say that there are at least eight places in this section where the foreign exchange control board may make a determination. In the first place, it may determine whether the individual in question is a resident or not. That is not unusual; it is being done in many cases. In the second place, the board may determine whether the resident has performed an obligation. That is the exercise surely of judicial functions, but this section purports to give the board that right. In the third place, it gives the board power to determine whether there has been on the part of a resident of Canada an agreement to perform a service. Fourth, the board has to determine whether the service is to be performed or has been performed for a non-resident. Fifth, the board has to determine whether a service has been performed, and if anybody thinks that is a simple determination let him examine the provisions of paragraph (w) of section 2 of this bill and see what the services are. I quote:
(w) "services" include skilled and unskilled labour, professional services, services as an agent or employee, storage and warehousing, freight, transportation, advertising, services to vessels and any other services whether payment for such services is ordinarily made in the form of wages, salaries, fees, rents, royalties, commissions, profit-sharing, or by payment of a lump sum or otherwise howsoever;


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some hon. members opposite may derive a certain amount of mirth from this, but I think, when it comes down to persons in their constituencies whose transactions are to be brought under review by the foreign exchange control board-


An hon. MEMBER:: We will take a chance on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -they will take a somewhat different attitude.


An hon. MEMBER:: We don't represent stockholders.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, number six: no resident shall perform for a non-resident any services of a kind ordinarily performed for remuneration. What kind? The foreign exchange control board, sitting in judgment, will decide whether the services in question are of a kind ordinarily performed for remuneration.
Foreign Exchange Control

right away than continue to put up with what I have seen happening in this house, because we are sent here to* represent the people. I come from a large commercial city which pays more taxes than any other city in the country and* as much as several of the provinces. The business men, expect me to look after their interests.
_ We are very shorthanded here. There is one vacancy; two hon. members are ill and one hon. member is not here.. We have a fine representative in the hon. member for Davenport, who never misses a day. I represent Ashbridges bay where there are over a hundred new industries, coal and all these other things, and I am pestered to death when I go home. People telephone me to ask if I have seen the wartime prices and trade board and the foreign exchange control board about permits and I have to advise them whether they are residents or non-residents and how to go about it.
I do not know of anything that will cause more unemployment than this section, and there are hundreds out of work in our city at the present time. The business men are scared to death of being prosecuted in 'the* police court under the bureaucratic system we have in this bill. Talk about hitlerism; we have hitlerism right now. Business men have a heavy task awaiting them in reconversion so that Canada may recover quickly. I would not want to be a business man to-day. I am sorry for business men, large and small, and for retail and wholesale dealers on our main streets. They are scared to death to do anything in export trade with non-residents for fear they will be summoned to the police court.
Is Canada going to recover any more quickly by having section 32 in this act which compels the taking out of a permit to do any business and requires a lawyer to tell you what a non-resident is, or value, or enchange rules, or a contract? I say no. Canada needs stability to speed the delivery of all classes of goods and meet market demands, so as to aid peacetime economy in employment, supply civilian needs and restore as soon as possible living standards, and defeat inflation and black markets. During the war we had a whole carload of people down in Washington to tell our business men what they had to do and what was the next step. We should get rid of these ham-stringing regulations so that business men can do business. Let us get rid of these irksome controls and remove the shackles from industry large and small. Give private enterprise a clear right of way unfettered by

a small standing army of inspectors, examiners, supervisors, card-filing clerks of a worn-out system of control. The time has come to end this bureaucratic system by striking out this classe. Every other two pages of definitions have to be read into section 32. Business must have freedom once again to succeed by free enterprise. We should put an end to government controls by blueprints and a horde of useless officials, most of whom have never had any training in any competitive business which they seek to control.


William Ross Macdonald: Before the committee
continues with this discussion may I remind hon. members that we are considering clause 32. I hesitate to rise to interrupt any hon. member when he is speaking to remind him of the clause before the committee. A good deal of the discussion this morning has been with regard to the principle of the bill and has not been directed strictly to the clause. I believe it is the wish of the committee that the clauses should be considered and that the discussion should be directed to the clause under consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall follow your instruction, Mr. Chairman. All I want to do is to read this clause, and I ask hon. members to listen to it-it is quite short; then I want to ask hon. members and the minister whether by any conceivable chance they can agree that this clause is necessary to what I admit is a legitimate aim of the bill. I have said frankly, and I say it again, that I would not want to take the responsibility of saying that there may not be an occasion on which some of these controls are temporarily necessary. What I plead for is a relaxation of the rigidity of the controls and for a limitation to be placed on its operation. The section reads, and I ask everyone to listen:
No resident shall, except in accordance with a permit, perform or agree to perform, in Canada or elsewhere, for a non-resident any services of a kind ordinarily performed for remuneration otherwise than on terms that provide for payment within six months of not less than the fair value thereof in a currency designated by the board as acceptable for such a transaction.
As I understand that, it means that nobody in this country can do a job, however small, with anyone in the United States without having it approved. Who is going to approve it? Who is going to exercise the judgment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No permit is needed if he complies with the instructions in the latter part of the section, "otherwise than on terms

Foreign Exchange Control
will be asked to declare who is a resident and who is a non-resident, what is the value, and so on. If I have to swallow that I want to know the reason why. We are sent here to find out who wrote this section 32. We should take section 32 and examine it word by word. Who is a resident? If you look up the interpretation on page 3 you will find that a nonresident is defined as a person other than a resident. Did you ever hear of such a play on words? A non-resident is any person other than a resident.
What is domicile? I should like to know who wrote section 32. I tried to find out in a respectful manner, but I could not. I know the two gentlemen sitting in front of the minister only for their reputation as good men and able officials. I have nothing to say about our expert staffs because they all did good work during the war. They represent in peace what I would call a bureaucratic staff. The minister and the deputy minister and all ministers are tied up to bureaucrats; they are bound and gagged. If this section is to pass we might just as well go home and let the experts in front of the minister decide the liberty of the subject under section 32 and everything we are talking about to-day.
Under section 32 you were going to have a permit from the bureaucrats. Every minister is getting a permit system. The minister of health has it. I asked him what could be done about certain permits and he said he would have to consult the provinces, if you please. It is getting so bad that the hon. member for New Westminster will have to consult the provinces in order to be able to play the bagpipes. Everybody has to get a permit. Soon we shall all have to have permits; we shall have to bow down and worship these bureaucrats. This is not real Liberalism. As I said the other day, there is no real Liberal on the government benches except the hon. member for Temiscouata. He is wearing the school tie and the mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his principles, and all the others should wear the school tie of real Liberalism. They may have to get permits from the bureaucrats to wear that tie.
The result of this will be that business men will have to appear in the Toronto police court before a lay or legal magistrate. Men who have never been in court before will be dragged before the magistrate and be charged by some representative of the bureaucrats under this section of lack of a permit or for dealings with a non-resident. They do not leave it to the crown attorney; they engage a lot of Liberal lawyers to appear in the police court and charge these men with not having
a permit or not following this section. They are charged with not being residents, in dealing with non-residents, what is real value, what is remuneration, and other matters. I studied this bill from beginning to end last might; I read it three times, andi I am surprised that I did not know about it before last night. The business men do not know all about it and I do not know what is going to happen when they do find out about section 32. Who is going to decide who is a resident and a non-residemt in order that he may get a permit to do business? The business man will have to get his remuneration in cash or on the counter; he must have it within six months. How are you going to conduct business under those conditions?
There are other sections, but they are all related to this one. The chairman is a lawyer and he knows that you must read the marginal notes, the headlines and the interpretation section into every section. Into section 32 will be read four pages of the interpretation. When you get a permit you have to be paid in six months. What happens then? They go to work and they make every excise officer and every customs officer am officer of the board. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who boards the train at Hamilton bound for the border will be an agent. I do not know what American officers are doing on a train. The United States customs officers are there and the Canadian officers and they will be asking everybody to produce permits because they are officers of the board.	There will be
deputies all over the country of the bureaucrats who are running this country.
I want to pay a tribute to the civil service, because there are good mem there. We have a fine civil service. Some of the mem attached to the foreign exchange control board have been in the civil service a long time, and they are not to blame for the mistakes of the administration.	However,	none of the
bureaucrats have had very much training in practical business, or they would mot have written in section 32. How -in the world can you conduct a retail or wholesale business with this horde of inspectors who under this bill will be inspecting you to death? There will be all the red tape, there will be all these regulations, there will be an army of officials, miles of restrictions, gallons of official red ink and an army of clerks and stenographers. How is any man going to conduct business? I do not know.
We shall have to change our ways. The House of Commons might as well be abolished because we are virtually signing the death knell of parliamentary and) responsible government in this country by such acts as these of bureaucratic control. I would rather resign
Foreign Exchange Control

May I say at the outset that no one regrets more than I do or more than the government does the necessity of having to continue foreign exchange control. My hon. friend has said that now the war is over we should be able at once to dispense with all these devices. Well, it is true that the fighting has ceased, but if any man looks around the world to-day and says that economic war has ceased, or that we are in a stable, ordered condition, I say that is a serious reflection upon his intelligence. I say that as far as economic conditions are concerned we are just as much in need of protection for our foreign exchange resources as at any time during the war.
The hon. gentleman has said that this is an attempt to shackle trade, and what we should do is assist trade. I turn that around and say the sole purpose of this measure is to see that we shall have adequate foreign exchange resources to assist trade, and not shackle it. Let me assure this committee that as a member of the government nothing would please me more than to be able to get rid of control and be able to operate under the old law of supply and demand; but if anyone will tell me that with conditions as they exist to-day any country would be able to carry on under those conditions, all I can say is that the person making that suggestion is not aware of modern economic conditions.
My hon. friend speaks of preserving good relations with the United States. No one is more anxious than I that this be done; as a matter of fact my grandfather came from the United States. But surely we must face the situation as it is. We have to deal with the matter of exports to and imports from the United States; and to-day our imports from that country are at an all-time high. This is not an attempt to restrict trade between the two countries; it is just the reverse. This is a measure intended to assist trade.
My hon. friend asked why we were taking these measures to separate the two countries. Well, the answer is simple: we are a separate country, with a separate currency. If we were part of the United States, of course we would not be faced with all these difficulties; we would all have the same currency. But on balance we are a debtor nation, and to a very considerable extent. If we are to retain our national integrity and the integrity of our dollar, we have to adopt appropriate measures to see that our exchange position is protected. That is the purpose of this measure. It worked effectively during the war. and has worked effectively since the war.
My hon. friend made a moving plea for importers and exporters, but I think if he took a poll of importers and exporters in this 
country he would find them pretty well satisfied with the way in which exchange control operated during the war. I think a little more attention should be paid, as I hope it will be paid, to some remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Charlotte, as to his experiences and the experiences of his neighbours and friends in connection with exchange under abnormal conditions, where one man was quoted one rate and another man another. Whatever may be the defects of the present system, and it may have some, at least everyone knows the situation with respect to foreign exchange, and everyone is quoted the same rate.
The last point my hon. friend made was that this is part of the C.C.F. platform. It is no such thing. Exchange control is in effect to-day in every modern country in the world with the exception of the United States. The reason it is not in force there is that the economic position of the United States is so strong and its holdings of gold are so high that the United States dollar is the strongest currency in the world, and everyone wants it. But everyone does not want Canadian dollars.
I repeat that the whole purpose of the measure is to provide for the efficient handling and conservation of our essential foreign exchange resources.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to refer to section 32, and I do this because I come from a commercial city. I am very much surprised that a bill like this has been brought up in the dying days of the session. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the acting minister who has been placed in a position where he has to practically apologize to the house. He has performed a brilliant service during this session of parliament. He comes from a commercial area, the city of Montreal, as does the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. We are now in the ninety-ninth day of this session and here we have a bill that has never been before the banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was there for weeks.


Thomas Langton Church: It was in some respects. Who are the men who proposed this bill? Has the Department of Justice seen it?


William Ross Macdonald: I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks strictly to section 32 and not speak generally on the bill. I think the committee would now like to have the bill discussed section by section.


Thomas Langton Church: I was about to make some remarks on section 32. Under this section every citizen of Toronto is likely to be dragged into the police court where a lay magistrate

Foreign Exchange Control


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had no practice in that.


John Thomas Hackett: If there were some indication that this government intended to quit, intended to recede from the position it has taken, I am sure that there are many people in this group who would say we do not want to be unreasonable; but because we can see no hope, no intent, no wish, no willingness to get away from these shackles, we say and I say we are against it, we want the people to know where we stand and why. We have nothing to enable us to pass judgment upon the legislation which is submitted because nobody has given any reason for it other than that it is government policy.
Another question which was asked was, "Do you object to the Canadian dollar being at par?" I do not object to the Canadian dollar being at par, but I want the Canadian dollar to be where it should be in the judgment of people who know values and have learned values in the harsh school of buying and selling. The difficulty with the Canadian dollar to-day, if it is two or three cents below parity in the markets of New York, is not that the Canadian dollar is worth less than the United States dollar; it is that the people of the United States are fearful that somebody without responsibility will mark it up or down, will do something with it which cannot be foreseen. That is the weakness of the Canadian dollar to-day. The Canadian dollar and the Canadian people are sound. The weaknesses of the dollar arise from the tampering with it, from the legislation which places the foreigner at the discretion of people who are not in trade and whose experience is not in real values.
As I said yesterday, I do not wish any of the gentlemen whose duty it is to operate this foreign exchange control fund to feel that because I cannot agree with their philosophy and management I am criticizing them personally. I am willing to believe that they are sincere and that they are doing what they think is right; but the result is that we cannot perform the smallest act which is reflected in dollars and cents without seeking the let or hindrance of the government or some of its minions; that is not a desirable situation.
Last evening we were talking about exports. An amendment was introduced freeing farmers and fishermen from the obligation of getting a permit when exporting their produce monthly up to an amount of $100. The amendment failed. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, one thing that we are exporting very rapidly and at great cost-our youth, our young men and young women of vigour and hope, who
find themselves denied an opportunity in this country. I shall read a letter which I received only yesterday from an involuntary exile:
Bill has a very nice proposition awaiting him in-
There is an American city named, which I need not read.
He worked at it for six weeks, and he is now on leave of absence. We are looking over the Canadian scene, so far with a notable lack of success. The newspapers are howling about ten thousand-odd Canadians who have crossed into the United States since the war, but so far as we can see there are no jobs to be had in Canada, at least jobs that pay or offer a future. I hate leaving Canada in every respect, but am beginning to fear we have no alternative.
The spirit that has inspired this bill, Mr. Chairman, is a spirit which has denied opportunity to Canadian youth in many spheres. It is that spirit which has taken aviation out of the competitive realm and put it under the dominion government. It is the spirit which has made the C.B.C. an overlord, the same spirit that is crowding out private enterprise, stifling the private stations. It is the spirit which is preventing the young Canadian engineer, the young Canadian chemist, the young Canadian doctor from getting jobs in Canada, driving them away to the United States.
I regret most sincerely that we should be faced with legislation of this type, especially when there is no reason for it. If it could be justified; if there was anything that could be said in support of it other than that it is government policy, I aim sure the people on this side of the house would be willing to listen. This entire policy of the bill is the policy of hon. gentlemen of the C.'C.F. I do not begrudge them their views, but I do not sympathize with them and I cannot share them. Just why the government, the party opposite, should have adopted the programme of the C.C.F. is beyond the imagination of man to comprehend. I ask myself, where is the Liberal party? Where are the people who stood for private enterprise in other days? Where are the great advocates of Liberalism? It may be that we shall have to wait until this measure is taken to another forum, to another place, as it is called. It may be that in the senate there still lingers a flickering of the Liberal spirit which contributed so much to Canada's greatness.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I shall not attempt to rise to the heights of moving oratory displayed by the hon. member for Stanstead, because I am not capable of doing so. He raised two or three points, however, to which I want to make brief reference.
Foreign Exchange Control

treaty of 1854, after some of the restrictions which had compelled us to trade with England and with no other country had been lifted.
Through the civil war we supplied materials to the United States and for the first time, with the exception of a few people who had been engaged in the fur trade, did we encounter some wealth and general prosperity in this country. Our relationship with the United States has been most intimate. We enacted restrictive regulations at the beginning of the war because we feared that much of the foreign capital that was here might take flight. We feared that citizens of the United States who had invested largely in the development of our resources, and who were deeply interested in the development of this country, thinking their capital in jeopardy, might take it home. That was when the United States was not an ally. Later the United States became an ally, a great ally, and we must admit that its support of the allied cause was one of the determining factors of the war. Those unhappy war days are over, and I ask the minister what reason there is now to restrict that flow of financial and commercial business between the two countries. These restrictions are not only prejudicial to our own people; they are unfair to those who have had great confidence in the development of Canada and who have supplied capital for its development.
In other days we have heard a great deal about the dangers to international amity resulting from high tariffs. It seems to me that these restrictions are far more dangerous than any peril that could have resulted from a tariff. After all, tariffs are enacted, rightly or wrongly, with the view of giving employment to the people at home. I must tell the minister that no one has been able to get at the real reason for the passing of this legislation and for the enforcement of the regulations which will be enacted under it now that the war is over.
In the banking and commerce committee we had the opportunity of questioning at some length two or three very agreeable gentlemen, but we never could get very far beyond, the fact that it was government policy to do thus and so. We never could get the reason; we never could get anyone to say that hardheaded business men had found it was in the interests of this country so to manacle and shackle the trade of Canada. I am asking the minister-he has had experience in business; he knows a great deal' about industry, commerce and banking-whether there is any underlying philosophy that justifies the country in embarking on an economic programme [Mr. Hackett.l
which is entirely at variance with that which we have followed up to now and that which has always prevailed on this continent.
In old lands where resources are exhausted and where people and weary from frequent and long wars resulting from rivalries and sometimes from hatreds which this continent has been spared, certain nationalistic tendencies have sprung up and developed. But on this North American continent there are still vast resources to be developed, and much depends upon our being able to get on with the job freely, without losing time in complying with meaningless formalities, there is real work in Canada for all, and the workers should not be burdened unnecessarily with the support of large numbers engaged in watching, spying and making records. I ask the minister why should we, the Canadian people, ninety per cent of whom live within two hundred miles of the international boundary, eighty per cent of whom live within a hundred miles of the international boundary, a boundary which it has been our pride to boast does not separate our peoples if it does delineate our respective territories-why should we attempt to segregate ourselves from the other people of this continent? What good purpose is to be served by it? These are questions which were asked in committee; these are .questions to which we tried to get answers and nobody was able to give an answer.
Unfortunately matters dealt with in this bill appear to be remote to most Canadians, they appear to be shrouded in mystery. Nobody knows exactly why the bill should become law, and that seems to be taken as a reason for enacting it. I am confident that there is nobody in Canada who is not willing to put up with a great deal of inconvenience if it is for any useful purpose; but so far no one has explained, either to the banking and commerce committee or to this committee, why we should depart from the freedom which has characterized our relations with the United States for the last hundred and eighty years, and why we should depart from that programme unprovoked while in the United States there is still the tendency and willingness to treat us with absolute confidence and good will.
Last night when an hon. member was speaking some hon. members asked-and I think the minister was of the number-"Are you opposed to this bill?" I am opposed to it. It sometimes happens that one gets himself into a situation out of which he has to ease himself. Even tenants of houses of ill fame are entitled by law to a three day notice to quit.

Foreign Exchange Control
agent here and wanted to pay him out of previously accumulated Canadian dollar assets, that is not permitted.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Suppose a prospector wants to go down to New York and get somebody to back him, and the backer in New York has Canadian funds in Canada; can he pay him from those Canadian funds or must he pay him in United States funds?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, these are hypothetical cases. That would sound like a new investment in Canada, and in those circumstances under existing regulations and practice the United States citizen could send in his United States dollars, convert them into Canadian and pay the prospector.


Alan Cockeram: Can he get them out again?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I was wondering whether the minister could see his way clear to change the period of time from six months to a year. I am personally interested in this matter, having some clients in the United States who have considerable farming interests in this country and, because the crop is not always marketed at once but over a period of twelve months, accounts are usually not rendered until after a year, only once a year. It would occasion inconvenience to these people if they had to do it within six months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The six months period is the period which is applied with respect to goods, and it is considered the normal period for payment. Provided payment was to be made within that period there would be no necessity to approach the board in connection with it. I am advised that if there is good reason for a longer period being ordinarily required, say twielve months or eighteen months, permission is readily granted.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Where is the authority in the act that the board has the right to grant that permission?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is under the phrase "except in accordance with a permit." The permit could make the period twelve, eighteen or twenty-four months. But provided it is within six months there is no necessity for a permit.
Mr. MeLURE: There are in the maritime provinces a number of agents or representatives of American firms. These American firms send their American money down to the provinces, appoint an agent to buy goods for them, in Canadian funds of course, and the goods are shipped. Does this bill preclude that agent from being paid because he will have to be paid in Canadian funds?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at all. The hon. member for Queens asked a question last night about the free port of New York, and I should like to get rid of that point now. I was not quite clear whether the question was directed to the method by which the foreign exchange control board ensures that the foreign exchange proceeds of the sale of goods are returned when received by the exporter, or whether he was concerned with the credit risk which the exporter might assume in making shipments in that manner. So far as the foreign exchange proceeds are concerned, that procedure is the same as for other exports. At the time the goods leave Canada the exporter declares the approximate amount and currency of the payment to be received and the board looks to the exporter to sell funds to his bank at the time of receipt. So far as the credit risk is concerned, that is a matter between the exporter and his customers. I am informed that no cases have come to the board's attention of difficulties in connection with exports to the New York free port either from the board's or from the exporter's point of view.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister state to what extent the provisions of section 32 apply to countries other than the United States? I am speaking in terms of volume of controlled dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It applies generally to all countries. The purpose of the section under existing conditions is frankly to conserve the supply of United States dollars, and so far as the sterling area is concerned, by administrative practice and regulation, services may be performed for non-residents in those areas for payment in sterling or Canadian dollars or may be performed gratuitously. The real restriction for the time being is on areas where United States dollars are the currency.


John Thomas Hackett: That being the case, and the restriction having its practical application almost exclusively to American dollars, I ask the minister what is the purpose of the enactment. We have lived beside the United States for nearly two hundred years. We have lived with the United States in unbroken peace for nearly a hundred and fifty years. Our relationship has been one of the greatest amity and confidence. Why therefore should we at this time attempt to control the financial and business relationships which exist between these two countries? For generations we have depended upon our trade with that country. The first blush of prosperity that coloured the drab financial complexion of this country grew out of our trade relationship with the United States following Lord Elgin's trade
Foreign Exchange Control

Section 31 agreed to.
On section 32-Services.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This whole bill is an
example of bureaucracy in full force and power, bureaucracy being most careful to stretch as much red tape as it possibly can around all exchange regulations and transactions. The persons who drew up this bill, as far as I can see, were so insistent on stopping up all holes through which any capital might get out of the country that they have carried it to the extent of stopping up a lot which exists purely in their own minds; and this clause is an example of it. It prevents anyone in this country from performing any services for a person in another country. The result of it is that if you have a friend or relative in a foreign country you are not permitted to sell any real estate for him, or to buy real estate, or perform any service of the kind without getting a permit from the board. Of course quite a number of services of this kind people frequently wish to perform without any remuneration; but in any case under this section you must not receive remuneration for a service.
When the matter was being discussed in the committee I asked an expert witness if there was any real reason or necessity for this clause, and the only answer I could get from him was that it was put there in order to prevent a resident of Canada from building up a credit abroad. That is no reason at all. Under another section of the act, any credit which any resident of this country builds up or secures abroad, through a sale of goods or in any other way, the board can force him to bring back to Canada. In view of the fact that the board has that power of compelling the Canadian resident to bring into Canada any securities or credits he may have in a foreign country, I can see no necessity for this clause. It is just a piece of useless red tape which further complicates the matter and makes it a nuisance. Therefore I move that the bill be amended by deleting clause 32.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister, for the benefit of those of us who were not on the banking and commerce committee, explain this section?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I thought perhaps
the amendment would be put and then I would answer my hon. friend.


William Ross Macdonald: With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Calgary East, that the bill be amended by deleting clause 32, that clause would be automatically deleted if it were defeated on the vote. The question on this particular clause

will be: Does clause 38 carry? If the clause does not carry, it is automatically deleted; accordingly I must rule the amendment out of order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might comment on the statement made by my hon. friend. As members of the committee will see if they read the clause, it provides that services rendered by Canadians to non-residents must be paid for in a currency designated by the board. The purpose of the clause is to prevent Canadians from rendering services in the United States and either agreeing to accept payment in Canadian dollars or allowing the matter to stand and not accepting payment now, or making what might appear to be a gift. One of our large sources of United States dollars is the performance of services by Canadians, individuals or corporations, for non-residents. It includes not only legal services but insurance services and that sort of thing; and it is felt that, since an exporter of goods is required to take the fair value of those goods in United States dollars-using that as an example-it is only fair that the lawyer or the insurance man or anybody else who performs services for a United States resident should get paid for those services in United States dollars, in order that those United States dollars may be available for Canada. That, briefly, is the purpose of the section, and I may say that it is considered an essential provision of the bill.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What about a company in the United States which had a branch office in Canada and hired the services of a Canadian?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the reverse case. A company in the United States hiring the services of a Canadian would pay him in Canadian dollars, I suppose.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Suppose the United States company has only an agent in Canada and has Canadian funds which have been here since the beginning of the war. I know of companies in the United States that have had millions of dollars tied up in Canada all during the war. They left it here because they could not get it back to the United States. Now they want to get it back.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position with respect to a case such as my hon. friend mentions is this: if the American company were earning revenue in Canada they could pay their Canadian representative in Canadian dollars out of that revenue, but if they were not earning revenue in Canada, if they had an

Foreign Exchange Control
capacity. Its present capacity for automobiles is 37, but by the addition of a flat car another 24 automobiles can be carried, making a total of 61. It is expected that the addition of the flat car will take care of any congestion during exhibition week.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask the Minister of Transport when the new ferry steamer Abegweit will be in service? It was understood it would be in service in 1946. Can the minister give the date?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I could give the hon. member perhaps a little more information than I did when he last asked this question, but I would, prefer to make a statement on the whole matter when my estimates come up. In view of changed circumstances it will be impossible to have this ferry ready for September 30.



BRITISH CONTRACT WITH DENMARK

Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I wish to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture when I may receive an answer to the question I asked yesterday about Danish bacon.


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be the Acting Minister of Agriculture, and I must admit that my experience is not very great in these matters. I am asking the department to have a report prepared, and I hope to be able to give an answer to my hon. friend to-morrow.



MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, as we are in a period of hot weather would it not be possible for the government to supply the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are on duty in front of this building with lighter uniforms?
James Arthur Ross: They do not want them.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, it would be possible to do so, but I think it would be undesirable.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 8, consideration in committee of bill No. 195, respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control
of transactions involving foreign currency of non-residents-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 28-Registration of transfer of securities by resident to non-resident, etc.
Alan Cockeram: Would the minister explain section 28(1) (a) which says that:
No person shall, except in accordance with a permit, (a) knowingly register any transfer of Canadian securities from a resident to a nonresident.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The purpose of that is to prohibit the transfer of Canadian securities from a resident to a non-resident without a permit.


Alan Cockeram: Does this mean that transfer agents in Canada must obtain a permit before making a transfer from a resident to a non-resident on a Canadian register?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The transfer agent must not transfer a security from a Canadian resident to a non-resident without first having been furnished with a permit for that transaction.


Alan Cockeram: And that applies to every transaction?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has been in force ever since the inception of the foreign exchange control board.


John George Diefenbaker: Subsection 2 deals with the matter of regulation. I suggest to the minister, and I am sure he is in agreement, that that subsection stand until we have the opportunity of dealing with the general question of regulations under section 35.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is quite agreeable.
Subsection 1 of section 28 agreed to.
Subsection 2 stands.
Section 28 stands.
Section 29 agreed to.
On section 30-Governor in council may require residents to report ownership of foreign securities.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a previous occasion several years ago I asked for the registration of all diamonds and precious stones entering this country, but that was denied. There are people who come to Canada with bags of diamonds worth millions of dollars, and they pay no tax on them. There should be an inventory of those possessions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not familiar with the diamond situation, but the registration of particular commodities such as diamonds would not come under the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 370, to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 371, to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 372, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 373, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Anita Spinner Starr.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Fay Podolne Litwin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Gregoire (Hryhory) Hyss, otherwise known as Harry Hys.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of James Lamb Runciman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Lionel Anecie St. Denis-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Emily Kathleen Mennie Thissen-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Robert Frederick Ring.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Walter Vernon Lewis.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Leonard Ferdinan Raymond-Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas King Hazen: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trans-
IMr. Abbott.]
port. Has a report been received about the removal of the wrecked SS. Beaverhill from Hillyard's reef where it went aground on November 24, 1944, and if so, can the minister tell us when the wreck will be removed?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman telephoned my office a short while before I came down to the house, so I have not a complete report on the subject matter. From memory I can state that the SS. Beaverhill has been in the harbour of Saint John for almost two years. This vessel was owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and it was abandoned by that company to the insurance company which in turn entered into a contract with Foundation Maritimes Limited to remove it at a very high cost. The position to-day, I am informed, is that the contractor is awaiting favourable tidal conditions in order to remove it, possibly at the end of this month. The department officials are doing everything they can to expedite its removal. I am further informed that it is not interfering with traffic.



P.E.I. CAR FERRY SERVICE USE OF &quot;SCOTIA&quot; FOR OLD HOME WEEK- SS. &quot;ABEG'WEIT&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNAUGHT (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, a copy of which has been delivered to him. Will the Department of Transport place the Scotia on the Borden-Tormentine run to assist the present ferry during exhibition week, and also during the busy fall season?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the department
officials have given consideration to the placing of one or other of the Scotias on the strait of Northumberland during exhibition or old home week in Charlottetown, but the position with reference to the two Scotias is this. Scotia I is now in dry dock at Halifax, and will not be out for some two or three weeks. As soon as it is released, Scotia II, which is in need of extensive repairs, will have to go into dry dock and will not be released until the month of November. During the month of November the weather is so rough in the strait of Northumberland that the department officials think it would be dangerous to add either Scotia I or II to the present Prince Edward Island car ferry service. But in order to relieve the congestion that might arise during old home week it is proposed that the Prince Edward Island car ferry be used to its maximum

Privilege-Mr. Low


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not know whether the minister understands what I am talking about.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I understand what the hon. member is talking about, and I understand the principle involved.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I shall have to go into some detail and explain.


An hon. MEMBER:: At this late hour?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Aes, unfortunately, because this bill, while there may be some good points about it, is going to cost the Canadian people in the way of employment and progress untold amounts. Its cost will far outweigh the benefits to be derived from it. The simple question that I asked the minister was, if the Canadian acquires these United States securities through the sale of Canadian assets in the United States-he is not drawing on the funds which the board has in funds in the pool-


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows that the foreign exchange control board will not allow a Canadian who goes to the United States to export his Canadian capital to that country unless a permit is granted.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I know of all the prohibitions of the board, but what I want the committee to understand is why? Why are there to be prohibitions against that which in no way interferes with what the board would1 otherwise have?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory filibuster.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Because of the prescience of the individual in looking after his old age he has provided himself with funds at no cost to the board. He has in no way interfered with the board. What I am asking the minister is, in what way has the transaction which I have outlined interfered' with the amount of United States funds which would otherwise be available?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Again the short answer is that the Canadian who sells Canadian securities in New York and buys United States securities has increased the over-all debit balance of Canada to the United States, if he then moves to the United States.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, August 9, 1946