1946-08-31

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following message:
Government House, Ottawa Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
August 31, 1946. Sir:	_
I have the honour to inform you that The Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency

Supply-Labour
the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, the thirty-first of August, at 4 o'clock, p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the seriousness of present conditions and the possibility that it might be desirable to call parliament or some of its committees together, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether consideration has been given to the suggestion of not proroguing parliament but adjourning it, as was done during the war.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): No consideration has been given to the suggestion that parliament be adjourned instead of prorogued. I mentioned it to one or two, and there would be some rather serious objection to that course at this time. It was felt that if conditions required the meeting of parliament it could be brought together with sufficient dispatch to care for any situation that might arise.
INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF OPENING OF NEXT SESSION On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that we know prorogation takes place to-day, will he inform us when the opening of the next session will take place?
Right. Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): I can add nothing to what was said in the house by the Prime Minister on that subject.



PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
PRESS REPORTS OF YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has anything to add to the statements which have appeared in the press this morning regarding a rather serious dispute between the Canadian and Russian delegates at the peace conference in one of its proceedings yesterday?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I have nothing to add, and my experience would allow me .to entertain the hope that if I had further information I might have something to subtract.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
110.	Annuities Act, $448,006.
['I am not getting up to take part in the controversy over the situation existing at the moment. I appreciate fully the position the Acting Prime Minister is in. In recent weeks he has been endeavouring to bring this parliament to a close without depriving anyone of the opportunity to speak.\nSupply-External Affairs', "I have been in consultation with him in recent days and I know what his plans have been; it has not been in his mind that anybody should be prevented from speaking. At the same time this is the parliament of Canada, and any hon. member has the right to speak at appropriate occasions, and he has that right now.\nI wish to say only two things. At the beginning of this session I took the opportunity of making some suggestions with respect to the time allowed for the consideration of the business of parliament, namely the voting of the people's money for the carrying on of the affairs of government. I think that is at least as important as any other work we do, and perhaps as important as all the rest put together. And it gets the least consideration. What I did at that time was to make several suggestions for the consideration of the house and the government: Hansard, page 36. They were as follows:\n1.\t-That the estimates, as is now customary, should be tabled immediately after the speech from the throne is disposed of.\nThat is generally done.\n2.\tThat the budget should come down at the same time or closely following.\nThis has not been the. rule, and was not the rule this year. We are asked to consider the expenditure of money before we are shown how the money is going to be raised.\n3.\tThat motions to go into supply should be made at least once weekly, on a day when such motion is debatable, so that members of parliament may not be denied the right to discuss matters they may regard as of pressing public importance.\nThat has not been the policy. We' have considered from time to time some of these estimates, but most of them have come on in these latter days.\n4.\tThat much more time should be allowed for consideration of the estimates and that definite days from the beginning of the session should be set aside for this purpose.\nAnd this concluding sentence:\nI do not think we should be giving the major part of our time at the beginning of the session to the consideration of legislation with the temptation to do too much talking and then be crowded into pushing these appropriations through without due consideration. The unseemly and unbusinesslike rush in voting away the people's money at the end of each session is a procedure unworthy of a responsible parliament.\nSpeaking as leader of this party, I am not aware that any further time will be taken on any of these items in supply. I think the suggestions which have come from all sections of the house to-day, and the suggestions which\n\nI made and have now repeated, should receive the consideration of the government for another year.\nI have just one question on external affairs estimates and then I will be through; and so far as I am aware, under the existing circumstances there will be no further time taken by members of this party on any of the other items. I am suggesting to no one here that he avoid speaking, but so far as I know there will not be much more time taken in this session. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the government of Canada had approved a wheat agreement in 1942. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sure; 'he said he did not think it had. I would like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could answer that question. And then this other:\tif the\ngovernment did agree to it, I should like an explanation of why a one-nation agreement was entered into with Britain, when it was already committed to the 1942 agreements.\nMr. ST. LAURENT: Dealing with the matter last referred to by the leader of the opposition, may I say that the members of the wheat committee of the cabinet were aware of the negotiations that were going on, and they never requested the representatives of Canada to withdraw from the discussions, but the discussions never reached a point where the question arose as to whether they should be approved or not.\nWith respect to the time taken in the house, I think each one of us must beat his own breast and recognize his own part of the responsibility. I should like to remind the house that, seven weeks of this session were taken by us in discussions of votes of no confidence, first on the address, then on the original motion to go into supply, and third, on the budget. I think that those three debates would have resulted in the same votes had they been very much shorter than they were. I am not casting blame on anyone; I am just pointing out that each one of us has his responsibility in that regard.\nAt this moment may I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report progress and ask leave to sit again this day, so that I may have the privilege of moving that there be no intermission.\nProgress reported.\nMr. ST. LAURENT moved:\nThat the resolutions considered in committee of supply this day and reported be read the second time and concurred in."]
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am in support of this act, and the activities carried on under it. However, I wish to ask a question relative to a change which has been made as the result of an item in a recent auditor general's report. As I understand it, until recently the annuities branch was issuing, among its various contracts, what is known as a last survivor contract, either until the death of both of the survivors, or for a guaranteed period of, we will say, ten or twenty years. Apparently the auditor general discovered that there was no authority for the guaranteed provision attached to a last survivor contract, and accordingly the annuities branch has discontinued issuing that kind of contract. I understand there is no question about the rejection of contracts issued prior to the matter being pointed out by the auditor general. These contracts were made by the government and signed, so they are valid. Such contracts however are not now being issued. I am not one to ask that the government do something for which there is no provision through parliamentary legislation, but I should like to know whether consideration has been given by the government to amending .the act so as to provide for the kind of contract to which I have referred.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The question as to the decision or the opinion expressed in the auditor general's report is under review between my department and the Department of Justice.


Mr. McLURE:: Are these annuities sold by salaried men, or on commission? I notice that agents' commissions total about sixty per cent of the vote.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are sold on
straight commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
111.	Fair wages, conciliation and industrial disputes investigations, $188,974.
['They are sold on\nstraight commission.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: This item has to do with conciliation and I should like to speak briefly in connection with it. One matter of major
Supply-Labour-Fair Wages

interest to me, in addition to questions I have raised during the course of the session, is the typographical dispute. First I should like to make it clear that this dispute is between certain publishers and a union which is clearly a well-established trade union organization. The minister knows as well as I do that the international typographical union is one of the oldest on the North American continent. I was interested to learn a short time ago that at a banquet held by this union in Toronto in October,[DOT] 1944, a message was received from the Prime Minister in which he expressed his regret at being unable to accept an invitation to attend. In part he said:
I regret not being able to be present as at one time I wrote a short history of the international typographical union as a study in trade union methods. It was published in the Journal of Political Economy of the University of Chicago that year. The international typographical union is a model for others to follow.
I was interested in getting from the library a copy of volume 5 for 1896-97 of the Journal of Political Economy, and reading the article on the international typographical union which appears at page 458 and following, written by the present Prime Minister. I mention this only to make it clear that this is not some passing organization which is out to stir up trouble. It is one of the oldest unions on the North American continent, and has been recognized for some time by no less a person than the Prime Minister, as a model for others to follow.
As I understand it, the dispute arose in Winnipeg nearly a year ago when contracts then in existence between the union and the two daily newspapers there were about to expire and it was time to seek negotiation of a new contract. The union in seeking this new contract was desirous of improving rts position in the matter of hours of work, take-home pay and certain other conditions-but mainly the first two items I have mentioned. The negotiations had not proceeded very far until something of an impasse was reached. But the publishers made an issue, not out of the things really at stake, namely hours and wages, but rather out of certain words in the contract as proposed by the union. The words were these:
Provided however local union laws not affecting wages, hours and working conditions, and the general laws of the international typographical union, shall not be subject to arbitration.
The publishers picked out this clause and declared it to indicate in the main two things: (1) that the union was asking for something contrary to the law of Canada; and (2) that the local union in Winnipeg, of which I am a

member, was being dictated to by the head office of the international union in Indianapolis. My understanding of the situation is that that was a wholly false position for the publishers to take. In the matter of the second claim, that there was dictation from the head office in Indianapolis, I am in a position to know that decisions all through this dispute have been taken in a democratic way by one of the most democratic trade unions in North America.
When local unions are part of an international union, the minister will know what I mean when I say that that is part of their strength. It is best for them not to be just a local group, but to be part of a nation-wide, and in this instance, a continent-wide organization. They draw from that fact all the strength they can in their struggle with their employers. But the basic decision whether certain conditions should be sought, and, if such conditions are not met, whether the workers should go out on strike, is made by the members of the local union themselves.
With respect to the other charge, that the union was seeking something contrary to the law of Canada, let me say that I take strong exception to it on several grounds. To begin with, there can be no objection to the expression "provided however local union laws"-and please note this part of it-"not affecting wages, hours and working conditions"-and I go on-"and the general laws of the international typographical union shall not be subject to arbitration". In that clause asking for the exception from arbitration of certain laws of the union, specific exception from the exception is made with reference to matters affecting wages, hours and working conditions. Those are, by definition in P.C. 1003, the essential items in a collective agreement so far as Canadian law is concerned. I contend that on the face of it the wording of the clause objected to cannot be called contrary to Canadian law. In addition, similar clauses have been in contracts between the international typographical union and a great many Canadian newspapers for a great number of years. That information is already on Hansard for June 26, where the minister gave answers to certain questions which I asked, to be found on pages 2848 and 2849. These were:
1. Have any contracts between the international typographical union and Canadian newspaper publishers prior to November, 1945, contained a clause providing in any way for the accepting of the union's laws, not relating to hours, wages and working conditions, from arbitration.
To that the minister leplied. "Yes."

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages
My next question was:
If so, with what newspapers and dating back how long?
The answer to that question took about two pages, listing newspapers in many cities in most of the provinces of Canada which have had contracts with the typographical union including such a clause. More recently some new contracts have been signed with other papers where no disputes obtain, and there is on Hansard a specific answer with respect to one of those, namely, the Ottawa Journal, which since the other disputes began has signed a contract including such a clause as this, with one qualification to which I will refer in just a moment.
My contention in all of this is that that clause is not contrary to Canadian law. Furthermore, the proof is found in the many contracts of a similar nature which have existed down through the years. Since that was a point on which an impasse was reached, namely, the wording I have just quoted, an attempt was made-I am not going to discuss now which side took the initiative, or where it came from-to try to reach conciliation on that point. The result was a meeting with officials of the Department of Labour on January 30, 1946, at which were present not only officials of the Department of Labour but representatives of both parties to the dispute. When the meeting was over it was agreed all round that certain words should be added to that clause to which objection had been taken. The clause as amended, and as accepted by the international typographical union, reads:
Provided, however, local union laws not affecting wages, hours and working conditions and the general laws of the international typographical union shall not be subject to arbitration except in so far as such arbitration and the results thereof are compulsory under Canadian law.
The addition of those last sixteen words clears away any doubt as to the desire or thought of the international typographical union to do anything contrary to Canadian law. When I was speaking a moment ago about the Ottawa Journal I mentioned a certain qualification. I had reference to that last phrase which has been added to the wording of the Journal contract.
It seems to me that a mountain has been made out of a mole hill with respect to this clause which has been in dispute. There is no doubt in my mind that that is not the issue. The issue is wages and hours, and also the question whether or not the publishers concerned are as anxious as they might be to see unions in this country strong. At any 63260-360
rate, issue having been made on that point my quarrel with the Minister of Labour-I am going to be quite frank, because it is early in the morning and there is no reason for our losing tempers; on the other hand let us on both sides speak our minds about this; he is a member of this house and he can make his reply-is that throughout the piece he has helped to give credence and strength to the ideas that the publishers-


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us be fair about this; there is no quarrel between my hon. friend and me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure of that.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, there is not. You are making the quarrel yourself.


Gordon Graydon: It takes two to make a fight.


Humphrey Mitchell: When the boys read that back home I do not want them to think that the galleries were filled when you and I had a quarrel. I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister and I could have a quarrel even if there was nobody else here at all. Apparently the minister does not like what I am saying.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not mind; this is a free country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly it is a free country, and I want to keep it so. It seems to me that the duty of the Minister of Labour is to be impartial in matters of this kind. I would hope that once in a while he would really see the workers' side of these things. But despite the fact that from January 30 of this year it was agreed to add that other clause, despite the fact that it was recognized by all concerned, the publishers and printers and labour department officials, that it took care of the matter, the minister kept on saying in this house as late as June 4, as reported on page 2153 of Hansard, in . answer to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that the basic issue was the desire of the union for something that was contrary to Canadian law. That is the idea the publishers have been spreading. The minister by making a similar statement-let us face up to this- has made it difficult for the union to establish its case in the eyes of the Canadian public as strongly as was warranted by the iacts.
In the meantime certain commissions were appointed to look into this matter. First of all there was a commission headed by Mr. REVISED EDITION
571?
Supply-Labour-Fair Wages

Justice Major of the province of Manitoba. His report was much along the same line, that the trouble arose from the fact that the union wanted something contrary to Canadian law. I challenge that statement outright, whether it comes from the publishers, from Mr. Justice Major or from the Minister of Labour. The very wording of the clause in the contract does not substantiate that. Furthermore, the agreement made in the office of the Department of Labour on January 30, 1946, wiped out any question about it at all.
A little later another commission was established, this time under Mr. Card. In due course Mr. Card made a report in which he made the same claim, that the trouble arose out of the desire of the union for something that was contrary to Canadian law. He also tried to make the point that the trouble arose because the head office of the union in Indianapolis was dictating to the union in Winnipeg. If there was any truth in these charges one would not be so much annoyed about them, but when they are untrue and are handed out by the publishers, then by the commissioners that are appointed and then are concurred in by the kind of statement the Minister of Labour has made, it makes one wonder how much impartiality there is so far as labour disputes are concerned.
There has been one commission since then, the Lett commission. Brigadier Lett and others were appointed in British Columbia to inquire into the dispute out there between the Vancouver Province and the union. As hon. members know, the disputes in Vancouver, Edmonton, Hamilton and Ottawa were sympathetic disputes because the members of the same union in these other newspapers felt that their colleagues in Winnipeg have not been, fairly dealt with.
The report of the Lett commission was definite, namely, that the federal Minister of Labour should take steps to bring together the principal parties to the dispute. That has been one of the claims of the union throughout the whole story-that it was not just a . local matter to be referred to provincial authorities but a matter of concern to the federal Department of Labour because on the one hand you had a chain of newspapers and on the other a union that is nation-wide.
After the Lett commission report was tabled -I regret to say that the newspapers did not see fit to give it a great deal of publicity-a request was made in the house by the hon. member for Calgary West, and I frankly wonder why he made it, for the tabling of the Card report. That report was tabled by the minister, and although it was actually pre-
[Mr. Knowles. 1
sented to the minister some months before the Lett commission report, it has been given all kinds of publicity by the newspapers, whereas the same newspapers have given very little publicity to the Lett report. I cannot blame the minister for that, because he does not control the newspapers-somebody may interject, thank goodness for that. The fact is that the impression has been created that the Card report is the last word because it is the most recent one tabled in the house and it is the one which has been given most publicity. That is not true; it is not the last word. And in fact it simply mouths the charges which the publishers have made right from the beginning, that the union was being dictated to from Indianapolis and was asking for something contrary to Canadian law. All of this adds up, as I said, to a distortion of the true picture and my quarrel with the minister- he says we have no quarrel, but we certainly have-is that his statements to us in the house right down to June 4-and his statements since have not been very helpful-have had the effect of giving credence to these charges made by the publishers and supported by the first two commissions established.
Latterly, as I began to put questions on the order paper to get the facts before us, we were able to get the information brought out in public that the unioi had agreed on January 30 last, to that additional phrase in the contentious clause. We were able to get the information about other newspapers having similar contracts and were able to get attention directed to the Lett commission report. The minister then appointed Mr. Justice Richards as an informal investigator into the whole matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Justice Richards is not an informal investigator.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will take whatever word the minister applies.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know where my hon. friend gets his language.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would you call him?


Humphrey Mitchell: He is an agent of my own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But he is not a commissioner.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have appointed three commissions already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three?


Humphrey Mitchell: This would be the fourth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get our arithmetic straight. How do you mean-three already? Two at Winnipeg, and one at Vancouver?

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages


Humphrey Mitchell: I will settle for three.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been three-


Humphrey Mitchell: And this is the fourth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be if it were a commission. No man who has taken part in industrial conciliation stands higher in repute in this country than Mr. Justice Richards. I made my enthusiasm vocal by shouting "Hear, hear" when the minister announced in the house that he had asked Mr. Justice Richards to look into this dispute. But again, Mr. Chairman, a report has recently been made public by the Minister of Labour which cannot help but annoy the members of the international typographical union, particularly in view of their past feeling that the whole picture has been distorted. Why does that report annoy them? Because it has been discovered and announced that Mr. Woodruff Randolph, president of the international typographical union, was not able a week or so ago to attend a meeting of the Southam people and Mr. Justice Richards. The reason for that is clear but was not indicated. Mr. Randolph has been at Miami for the 88th convention of the international typographical union, and it was obvious therefore that he could not meet with the publishers at that time. But the statement that has been released by the minister that Mr. Justice Richards is not able to get the parties together because Mr. Randolph cannot come gives the impression that the fault is on the workers' side. That is my quarrel with the minister. I hope some day when he retires and has time to look over his past that he will read his speeches-


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: That is unfair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and see how many times he has made statements that have tried to put the workers in the wrong. He did it again last night when discussing the C.P.R. dispute. The only contribution the minister made was to say that the workers had broken a contract. I am not going to raise that question again this morning, but I will in due course. That is one of the points in dispute, for the men feel very strongly that the so-called contract was a one-sided arrangement made by the company.
Throughout this whole typographical dispute there has not been that impartiality which the minister claims he has shown, but there has been consistent support given to the position taken by the publishers. If the minister wants to be helpful in this dispute I suggest that he let it be known that he knows that the unions 63260-3601
are not being dictated to by head office in Indianapolis. He is a trade unionist and know, how these things work. Let him also let it be known that the union is not asking for something contrary to Canadian law. The wording worked out in the office of the Department of Labour on January 30, and acceptable to all concerned makes it very clear that the union is not asking for anything that would require an exception to be made to the laws of this country.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am not going into this matter at any length because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has covered it fully. When I hear him speak I realize that he made a mistake in not studying for law instead of the ministry.


Mr. McCANN:: Saving money instead of souls.


Angus MacInnis: There may be something in the remark made by the Minister of National Revenue. I would hate to be the lawyer opposing my hon. friend and I would dread to be the culprit he was prosecuting in the court.


Gordon Graydon: How would he do for a judge?


Angus MacInnis: He has made a very fair presentation of this case. I am interested in this dispute both as a trade unionist and because the Vancouver Province, a Southam newspaper, published in my own city, is involved in the dispute. I would urge the minister to do everything that can be done in the circumstances.
The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to dictation from the international head office is a most peculiar one for the Southam company to raise. There are several international unions in every printing shop. There is the typographical union, the pressmen's union, the stereotypers' union, the mailers' union. All of these are separate craft unions. The publishers in Vancouver who are accusing international headquarters of dictating to the typographical union appealed to the head office of [DOT] the stereotypers and pressmen to order the men back to work. The Southams just cannot have it both ways. If it is wrong for the typographical union to dictate to its members, it is equally wrong for the pressmen's international officers to dictate to the pressmen and for the stereotypers' international office to dictate to the stereotypers. We must be reasonable in these matters. So I just add my voice to the excellent plea which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made, that the minister use
Supply-Labour-Fair Wages

all his influence, both as Minister of Labour and as trade unionist, to get a settlement of this dispute.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a long speech, and it occurred to me that I might, in reply, read this document into the record. Let me say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that I cannot understand why any employer would find fault with any man belonging to an international trade union. I imagine nobody finds fault with bankers having international affiliations, or with members of service clubs which have their headquarters in some other country. It has been my experience that the greatest stability prevails where you have a strong international organization, whether it be in labour or in any other field of endeavour.
I think this can be truthfully said, that in contributions to good fellowship between Canada and the United States the labour organizations have done more than any other organization in existence. I cannot go along with those who would criticize any individual for belonging to an international trade union.
There is no question that this has been a difficult dispute, but I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Minister of Labour does not call people out on strike. That is not his function. His function is to endeavour to settle strikes once they occur. There is only one federal minister of labour in Canada, and I have been in the labour movement long enough to know that he is invariably the target for abuse from both sides. It does not matter how careful he may be in any expression of opinion he may give. To abuse him is the easiest thing imaginable; the practice is as old, I was going to say, as Methuselah, certainly since the inception of the Department of Labour in this country. I think I have appointed more commissioners in this dispute than in any dispute since I have been Minister of Labour. I have a long and close relationship with the typographical union. I grew up with them in the city of Hamilton; I carry a card in an international organization and attended their international conventions before my hon. friend, I suppose, ever carried a card in the organization.
It has been my steady policy as minister to endeavour to be impartial.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all I ask.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I know; but I think that if in the Department of Labour the scales are ever tipped, they should incline towards the labour organization. We have done everything we humanly could to settle

this dispute. We have appointed these commissioners, and that is why at the moment I am not going to say too much. Mr. Justice Richards is acting on my behalf in an endeavour to bring the top parties together in conformity with the recommendations of the Lett commission, which' sat in Vancouver. I do not think I should go any further than that. I could read this record if my hon. friend wishes to hear it. It is a little different from his own, but it is factual. It was not drafted by myself, but by the officers of my department; but in view of the fact that parliament is proroguing to-day I do not think I shall read it.
It is not fair always to accuse the minister of being this or that. Let the case rest on its factual basis. It would be a change if once in a while they would blame somebody else. I should be happy to see the day when the Minister of Labour was right in even some people's point of view. But I believe when the record is read it will be found that this administration has settled more disputes than any previous administration in the history of the dominion. It is quite true that sometimes a dispute will go off the rails, but I am proud of our conciliation service, and I am proud, notwithstanding the opinions of some other persons, of the contributions which my department has made to industrial stability in the last five very difficult years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not satisfied with the broad generalizations that the minister has made. He has not given any reply to the factual statements I have made about the basic issues in this dispute and the way in which the whole matter has been distorted. I make a strong appeal to him on behalf of his erstwhile friends in this union that he says he has had a long association with, to realize how deeply they feel about the matter. They believe that he should and I urge him to make a really serious attempt to bring the parties together and get this dispute settled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
117. Governments' contribution to unemployment insurance fund, $12,500,000.
['I am not satisfied with the broad generalizations that the minister has made. He has not given any reply to the factual statements I have made about the basic issues in this dispute and the way in which the whole matter has been distorted. I make a strong appeal to him on behalf of his erstwhile friends in this union that he says he has had a long association with, to realize how deeply they feel about the matter. They believe that he should and I urge him to make a really serious attempt to bring the parties together and get this dispute settled.']
Mr. LENNARD:: Yesterday I received a telegram from Hamilton which reads as follows:
On behalf of Hamilton striking war veterans of Stelco, Westinghouse and Firestone we are firmly convinced that section five, subsection (d) of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act affecting veterans involved in labour disputes is a gross discrimination under which veterans are

_________Supply-Labour-Unemployment Insurance
deprived of their out of work benefits. We strongly urge that this clause be rescinded as these benefits were granted to veterans for service in the armed forces of their country and in no way should be invalidated by civilian qualifications. Urging an early reply.
Harold Keeton, chairman, Hamilton Strikers Veterans Committee
It was my understanding as a member of the veterans affairs committee that this privilege was to give the veterans relief for a certain period until they got positions suitable to their requirements, and it ended there as far as any special privileges were concerned. I should like to know from the minister if that is a correct interpretation of the clause.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course there is the . basic law, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, that when persons are on strike they cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. It is not a question of benefits or anything like that; it is a question of the law as it is.


Angus MacInnis: I understand that the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission has resigned, and I should like to know if a chairman has been appointed in his place to complete the commission. Last year when we were discussing the minister's estimates we had a chairman but no commissioners. This year we have commissioners but no chairman.


Gordon Graydon: Time to get together.


Angus MacInnis: So I suppose when we get a chairman we shall be again without commissioners. Someone must be administering the Unemployment Insurance Act for whom in the act no provision is made. I would like to have a word from the minister as to how it is done.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is a chairman of the unemployment insurance commission. He does not retire until September 30, and my hon. friend can rest assured that on the first day of October there will be a new chairman in his stead.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister in a position to indicate who the new chairman is? I understand the minister has the choice made and the situation is well in hand. He might tell parliament what the situation is.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am afraid I cannot do that. The announcement will be made in due course. I may say, however, that there have been more applications for that chairmanship than there have been for senatorships. If the hon. gentleman were on this side of the house he would realize the trials and tribulations that beset us here.


Gordon Graydon: I take it the new chairman is not sitting far from the minister now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
SSI. Dispersal, maintenance and removal of Japanese nationals and other persons of the Japanese race, $4,000,000.
['I take it the new chairman is not sitting far from the minister now.']
Mr. REID:: I do not rise to bring up any controversial question, but I would ask the minister to give us some information about the dispersal of Japanese at the present time throughout Canada. Apart from the differing views we have, I think all are agreed that a dispersal programme is desirable in each province. I should like to know what the figures are and whether 'representations have been received from any of the provincial governments protesting against Japanese remaining within its borders, or otherwise.


Humphrey Mitchell: First of all, the policy has been to return to Japan those who have voluntarily agreed to go. The other basic policy is one of dispersal of all Japanese throughout Canada. The figures are these: British Columbia, Department of
Labour Settlement	 3,080
Elsewhere in the province	 5,572

8,652
Alberta	 4,172
Saskatchewan	 454
Manitoba	1,290
Ontario	 5,579
Quebec	 1,017
Nova Scotia	 1
New Brunswick	 10
Newfoundland and Northwest Territories	 30
Prince Edward Island	 6
There have been repatriated to Japan 3,152. There are approximately only 600 who have so far asked to be returned to Japan, and we are awaiting available shipping to take them there. We have received a letter recently from the Minister of Labour of Saskatchewan, indicating that about 1,000 are being located in camp at Moose Jaw. We have never had that number in Saskatchewan. The number in Moose Jaw is between 300 and 400. He was alarmed at the possible impact of the unemployment situation upon the province by the location in that province of a large number such as he suggested to me in his letter.


Angus MacInnis: The matter of dispersal is an important one, and everyone who wishes to see this very difficult problem solved hopes that the dispersal policy, which is the considered policy of the government, will be carried out as expeditiously and as fairly as possible. There are several difficulties, one of them arises out of the restrictions on travel
Supply-Japanese Nationals

of persons of Japanese origin in areas in Canada other than the defence coast area. It is understandable that until dispersal is completed or, nearly completed, restriction on the return to the coast area should be in effect. But to have the same restrictions practically in effect in every other part of Canada is not understandable. Let me show the committee how these restrictions operate. A Canadian Japanese living in Saskatchewan had recently to go to Nova Scotia to be admitted to the bar of that province, but before he could move from Saskatchewan, where he is in a responsible position in the civil service, he had to get a permit from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Surely such restrictions do not make sense. Remember, this man is a Canadian. He tried his best to get into the Canadian army or into to some other branch of the armed service, but because of the prejudice against him he was unsuccessful. Now he is working as a trusted employee of a government of this country, and in order to be admitted to the bar of another province and to take whatever oath lawyers take he has to get a permit from the mounted police. This applies to every person of Japanese origin moving from one province to another. These restrictions should be completely removed except as regards the return of persons to Pacific defence area.
Then there is the question of disposal of the property which belonged to these people when they were evacuated in 1942, property which it took some of them a lifetime to build up. This is a parliament that believes in private property. The property was taken from these people and sold for a song. I could give a number of instances of what they received out of a lifetime's hard work. Something should be done about it. An application was made to the exchequer court in 1943. This is 1946, and that application has not yet been heard. During this session we have heard a lot about the rights guaranteed to us under magna charta. I understand that one of the assertions in that document is, that rights delayed are rights denied. The courts may be slow, but I suggest to this committee that the courts of Canada are not so slow that they cannot find time to deal with these cases over a period of three years. In August, 1943, the solicitors representing these evacuees made application to the exchequer court, and it is still there. Only God and the exchequer court know when it wdll be heard. I suggest to the committee that that is not justice to Canadians.
There are a number of other petty restrictions which should be removed at once. Up to a certain point the United States followed

the same procedure with respect to the removal of Japanese from the coast area as we did, but they have appointed a commission to investigate the loss of property. Let me draw a parallel which is perhaps not a parallel in all respects. At the beginning of the war certain organizations were banned and classed as illegal organizations. Their property was confiscated. One of these organizations was the Farmer-Labour Temple Association. This association had property all across Canada. There was no question that at the time it was an illegal organization under the Defence of Canada Regulations. After Russia was invaded and came into the war on the side of the allies a cry went up for the restoration of this property to the former owners. A commission was appointed, and while I have not the actual facts before me at the moment, I believe that certain of these properties were bought back from the people to whom they were sold by the government at more than what was received for them and returned to these organizations. I am not objecting to the procedure followed, but I tell the committee that the sale of the property of Canadians of Japanese origin who were removed from British Columbia was far less justified than was what was done in the case of these organizations declared illegal at the beginning of the war. Therefore, I believe a commission should be appointed to see that justice is done in the matter. Advantage should not be taken of the fact that these people are of a different ethnic origin to ourselves, different colour of skin and so on. Let us deal with the matter as we would deal with any other Canadian, and I suggest it be done without the pressure which was provided in the case I have referred to.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will agree that when it comes to freedom of the individual I do not take second place to any man in the house or in the country. I refer to the basic principles of freedom in its broadest sense. In the administration of a dispersal policy of this kind you must have a controlled movement under which that policy is completed. What my department has endeavoured to do in the best interest of the Japanese themselves is to disperse them across the country, and, if humanly possible, to prevent a concentration of them in any particular locality. By about Christmas or not long afterwards we hope we shall have the whole situation pretty well stabilized.
With respect to the property, that does not come under my department; it comes under the Secretary of State, the custodian of enemy alien property.

Supply-Japanese Nationals


Angus MacInnis: These people were not enemy aliens.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will agree with my hon. friend, but let him take his mind back to just after Pearl Harbor. I have a vivid recollection of having to go to British Columbia and arranging for the movement of these Japanese from the coastal area. At that time the United States, ourselves and Australia, and other parts of the orient, were in grave danger. It was decided, as it was decided in many other countries, that in the interests of the safety of the nation it would be necessary to move these people from the protected areas of British Columbia. When we look back at it in a broad way I think we acted with discretion; we acted in the good British way. We were humane. We moved these people with the least inconvenience to themselves and their families. I think that can be truthfully said. I have had some experience in Europe. I have seen the movement of people in one country or in some countries which some people look upon as their spiritual home, and I should not like to think that we would ever sink to the level to which they have sunk over there. I sincerely believe we have done a fair job with the dispersal and removal of the Japanese, and we have done it in their own interests.


Angus MacInnis: I do not wish to dispute that point at all. As a matter of fact I commended the minister on several occasions on the way in which the job was done, but what I do suggest is that we cannot justify our treatment of these people, having regard to the fairness with which we dealt with the matter when we were dealing with it as military precaution, and that is what it was at that time. I assure the minister that I appreciate the efficient and satisfactory way in which that job was carried out under the circumstances, but that does not answer the point I have made.
I put some questions on the order paper in regard to persons of Japanese origin who were taken from the mental hospital in British Columbia and sent to Japan on one or other of the ships which left British Columbia. I understand that some fifteen or sixteen were sent at their own request, and one was deported by the department of immigration. This matter was drawn to my attention in the first instance by a letter which I received in regard to one Kosho Matano, who served in the Canadian forces in the war 1914-18. This man had suffered shock on account of his war services, and had been admitted to a mental hospital in British Columbia in 1933. A friend of Mr. Matano had visited him in the spring of 1942, when persons of Japanese
origin were being evacuated from the Pacific coast, and asked that this man be allowed to leave with the other evacuees at that time. He was told by the' superintendent of the hospital that they could not let him out because he was an extremely dangerous person. I find in the questions answered by the minister that this "extremely dangerous person"-I assume he was a lunatic-made a request for repatriation to Japan, that that request was granted, and that he left.


Thomas Reid: Was that before he was in the institution?


Angus MacInnis: No, I understand he had been in the institution since 1933. I am just wondering how a person who is confined because of mental incapacity could make a valid application to do anything. It is the most amazing thing I have ever heard. How was the matter first brought to the attention of the authorities? It is said that fifteen made application to be sent, but that they did not make written application. The others who had made application did so on forms provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These people, I understand, made application by word of mouth. To whom would such applications be made? What information was there on which to base such application? These are questions which should be looked into. In my opinion either the Department of Justice or some other department should investigate the matter, because it is serious. I should like to know if the captain of the ship on which these people were sent was advised that be had fiffteen or sixteen lunatics aboard. Was provision made for confining them while they were aboard so that they would not constitute a danger to other passengers?
I accept the minister's statement when he says he believes in democratic methods, but I submit that these are not the methods of democracy. These are totalitarian, autocratic methods-methods which have no regard for human values, human decencies or human lives. I suggest we should have a great deal more information as to how these mentally incapable people who were in a mental hospital made application to be sent anywhere. Surely if they could make application to be sent to Japan, they could make application to leave the hospital and be sent to Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else.


Humphrey Mitchell: The arrangements with respect to these people were made through the provincial authorities-not by my department. I might add that sometimes people in institutions are saner than those outside. Perhaps it would be wise to read this letter from the
Supply-Japanese Nationals

provincial mental hospital at Essondale, British Columbia. It is addressed to Mr. T. B. Pickersgill, commissioner for Japanese placement, in Vancouver, and states:
Referring further to our telephone conversation of this date I wish to advise you that fourteen Japanese patients of this hospital were repatriated to Japan and one Japanese patient was deported to Japan through the Canadian Immigration department.
The repatriation was entirely on a voluntary basis. The individuals were all certified mental patients of this hospital but their mental condition was such that they were able to comprehend the matter and able to express themselves. No coercion or persuasion was used. Each patient was individually interviewed by Mr. T. B. Pickersgill, Commission of Japanese Placement, together with an interpreter and in the presence of the medical superintendent of this hospital. Each patient voluntarily expressed his desire to be returned to Japan. At that time a signed statement was taken to this effect. The context of this signed statement was as follows:
"I hereby express my willingness and desire to return to Japan at the earliest possible
date- Signed	 Date."
The following is a list of patients of this hospital who were repatriated to Japan under the above circumstances:
Rosea Fugimato Hirona Fujiyoshi Sahara Kurishima Kosho Matano Matoru Motowaki Tomoyuki Mukai Jiro Nagayama Fomikichi Ogawa Tomiehi Ozaki Yoshikatsu Sawada Buta Sakata Kingo Tanitus Unichi Kimura Sukichi Kitagawa
Kuoje Tayi (Taiji) (Deported by Canadian immigration department)
Trusting that the above information will meet with your requirements, I am,
Yours truly,
A. M. Gee, M.D., Deputy Medical Superintendent.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I am not satisfied with that explanation. I believe that before any such decision was made another opinion should have been sought than that of Mr. Pickersgill, who is an employee of the government and who, as I see it, is very unsympathetic so far as these people are concerned.
The minister has said that sometimes there are saner people in mental hospitals than outside. After seeing what is done outside on occasions, I am in complete agreement with him on that point. But these people were in a mental condition which prevented their being allowed out, or at large; otherwise the superintendent of the mental hospital in British Columbia was not performing his duty in that he did not advise the authorities

that there were people in the hospital who had sufficient mental capacity to fend for themselves outside, and that arrangements should be made for their removal from the hospital before they went to Japan. The statements made are just not good enough.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment insurance commission-
535. General labour transference to industries and agriculture, $650,000.
['The arrangements with respect to these people were made through the provincial authorities-not by my department. I might add that sometimes people in institutions are saner than those outside. Perhaps it would be wise to read this letter from the\nSupply-Japanese Nationals', 'provincial mental hospital at Essondale, British Columbia. It is addressed to Mr. T. B. Pickersgill, commissioner for Japanese placement, in Vancouver, and states:\nReferring further to our telephone conversation of this date I wish to advise you that fourteen Japanese patients of this hospital were repatriated to Japan and one Japanese patient was deported to Japan through the Canadian Immigration department.\nThe repatriation was entirely on a voluntary basis. The individuals were all certified mental patients of this hospital but their mental condition was such that they were able to comprehend the matter and able to express themselves. No coercion or persuasion was used. Each patient was individually interviewed by Mr. T. B. Pickersgill, Commission of Japanese Placement, together with an interpreter and in the presence of the medical superintendent of this hospital. Each patient voluntarily expressed his desire to be returned to Japan. At that time a signed statement was taken to this effect. The context of this signed statement was as follows:\n"I hereby express my willingness and desire to return to Japan at the earliest possible\ndate- Signed\t Date."\nThe following is a list of patients of this hospital who were repatriated to Japan under the above circumstances:\nRosea Fugimato Hirona Fujiyoshi Sahara Kurishima Kosho Matano Matoru Motowaki Tomoyuki Mukai Jiro Nagayama Fomikichi Ogawa Tomiehi Ozaki Yoshikatsu Sawada Buta Sakata Kingo Tanitus Unichi Kimura Sukichi Kitagawa\nKuoje Tayi (Taiji) (Deported by Canadian immigration department)\nTrusting that the above information will meet with your requirements, I am,\nYours truly,\nA. M. Gee, M.D., Deputy Medical Superintendent.\nMr. MaeINNIS: I am not satisfied with that explanation. I believe that before any such decision was made another opinion should have been sought than that of Mr. Pickersgill, who is an employee of the government and who, as I see it, is very unsympathetic so far as these people are concerned.\nThe minister has said that sometimes there are saner people in mental hospitals than outside. After seeing what is done outside on occasions, I am in complete agreement with him on that point. But these people were in a mental condition which prevented their being allowed out, or at large; otherwise the superintendent of the mental hospital in British Columbia was not performing his duty in that he did not advise the authorities\n\nthat there were people in the hospital who had sufficient mental capacity to fend for themselves outside, and that arrangements should be made for their removal from the hospital before they went to Japan. The statements made are just not good enough.']
Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to refer to the out-of-work benefits applicable to service personnel who through no fault of their own find themselves engaged in an industrial dispute. I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs comes into this picture, and I have discussed the matter with him. In Ontario particularly, and also in other sections of Canada, there are hundreds of service personnel who have been granted certain rights and privileges under rehabilitation regulations. I refer particularly to the out-of-work benefits which are applicable up to eighteen months after the discharge of a service man. Many of these boys have taken employment in industry in which conditions and antagonisms which developed during the war have culminated in industrial disputes. Many of these men were employed only a month or two, or perhaps only a week or so, and then they found themselves out on strike and not able to take advantage of the benefits which ordinarily would be applicable to them had they not been engaged in a dispute through no fault of their own. I think the Minister of Labour has some responsibility in this matter, because the rehabilitation regulations were changed to conform with the Unemployment Insurance Act, and there must have been consultation between Veterans Affairs and Labour before that was done.
I appreciate the desire for uniformity in these matters, but the unemployment insurance is not comparable to the rehabilitation regulations. Many service personnel are suffering at this time through no fault of their own. I wonder if some consideration cannot be given by the Department of Labour in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs to setting a deadline. If a service man is employed six or nine months before becoming involved in an industrial dispute, the unemployment insurance could be made to apply. Hundreds of these fellows normally would be entitled to come under the rehabilitation regulations, but they are losing those benefits because they have been brought into a new war through no fault of their own. Will the minister consult with the Minister of

Supply-Labour
Veterans Affairs? I raised the question with that minister and he said it would be given serious consideration.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do that.


Clarence Gillis: The next point I should like to raise has to do with vacations with pay.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I am a little ahead of my hon. friend on that. We have written to the minister of labour of Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: Have you had any reply?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not yet, but I promise my hon. friend that I will send him a confidential copy as soon as I get one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
740. Departmental administration - further amount required, $21,216.
['Not yet, but I promise my hon. friend that I will send him a confidential copy as soon as I get one.']
Angus MacInnis: 
Humphrey Mitchell: I am merely the agent who appoints delegates to the I.L.O. The Canada Shipping Act comes under the Department of Transport. The matter of cooks would seem to be important from my hon. friend's point of view. We have already had conversations with the Department of Transport with the idea of setting up classes for these men. I suppose the question of the eight hour day will be given consideration when parliament prorogues. The hon. member knows that this meeting was held in Seattle only last June, and he can rest assured that the matters he has referred to will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that returned veterans who become involved in strikes such as those in progress at the Westinghouse and Firestone plants in Hamilton be given consideration. I received a telegram about this last night, and no doubt the minister also received a copy.
There is one other matter about which I dislike to bother the minister at the present time, but it does affect my constituency. I refer to the payment being made to prisoners of war working in the beet fields. How much are these prisoners of war paid per month for working in the beet fields in Lethbridge riding?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are paid 50 cents a day, in addition to the 25 cents a day provided for by the Geneva convention.


John Horne Blackmore: How much do they actually get per day?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course that is not in cash; it is in kind.


John Horne Blackmore: They receive tickets with which they can purchase goods; is that the idea?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: There is nothing that they can save? How much are the farmers required to pay?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have taken the position that under no circumstance shall prisoners of war be in unfair competition with normal civilian labour. We have laid down the policy that these men must be paid the going rates in the particular locality in which they are employed.


John Horne Blackmore: The department takes all the difference?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have been able to return about $2,125,000 to the treasury arising out of the employment of prisoners of war.
Supply-Labour


Mr. JAQUES:: Is it part of the Geneva convention that prisoners of war should remain prisoners of war twelve months or more after the end of the war?


Humphrey Mitchell: You would have had very little sugar in western Canada in the ' last two or three years if it had not been for prisoners of war. We are moving them out, and we expect all to leave Canada by November 2. Great Britain is still using prisoners of war, tens of thousands of them.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the Minister of Labour has no criticism coming to him because of what he has done with respect to these prisoners of war. If I were a prisoner I think I would feel a whole lot happier in Canada where I could get plenty to eat and be warm and well housed, and I would not be crowding the minister to rush me back home even after November 2. We have to face these things reasonably.
I should like to say a word or two about the treatment of the Japanese. I want to commend the minister for the way in which he conducted the evacuation of the Japanese from British Columbia. After the danger is all over and men do not smell the powder and are not afraid of the zooming of aeroplanes over their head at midnight, it is easy to look back and criticize. But what the minister did in those trying days was highly commendable; he deserves praise for it, and I want to give him praise.
Now a word or two with respect to the way in which he has disposed of the Japanese since, and I want this to go into the record because it is to the minister's credit. He has not been free to do the thing which in his judgment and the judgment of the government was the wise thing to do with these Japanese, because he has been interfered with by a whole lot of people passing resolutions and running up and down the country, the very people who would have been, to use a slang expression, "howling their heads off" when the trouble was on if anything different had been done and who are now shedding crocodile tears because we are not treating the Japanese as though we had never been at war with Japan. That arouses in me nothing but disgust and contempt. I deeply sympathize with the minister in his endeavour to deal with this problem. I deeply sympathize with him in his endeavour to deal with the labour problem all the way through. I say this for the record: I think the minister has done a good job; I doubt mightily that any other man in the dominion could have done any better, and perhaps no man could have been found who would have done as well as he Minister of Labour has done. I am not
in favour of the way in which matters are being dealt with in some respects under the Department of Labour, but the Minister of Labour is not to blame for any deficiencies that appear. I wish to put that on the record so that it will stay to the minister's credit as long as Hansard will be read.


Mr. IRVINE:: I have no objection to the compliment paid by my hon. friend to the efficiency of the Minister of Labour. In fact, in certain instances I would add something to it. But when he is making his comments so glowingly I do not think he should imply discredit to any other member of this house. I presume he was referring to the hon. member for Vancouver East as weeping crocodile tears over the Japanese people. If he was, he was expressing his ignorance of that hon. gentleman's attitude for many years and even before the war. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of the affair it does appear to me that the hon. member for Vancouver East has stood firm on a clear course throughout the whole episode. I believe he is substantially right when he says that injustices were done to these Japanese, and perhaps we could hardly expect otherwise in view of the war psychology. While they have been treated as they have been treated in Canada it may be some consolation for us to know that they have been treated much worse in other countries, but on the other hand there is no question about the justice of the position which the hon. member for Vancouver East has always upheld in this house.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad that the
hon. member for Cariboo was honest enough to make his criticism in my presence so that I might have a chance to defend myself. Other people would have gone out and prattled all over the country. I prefaced my remarks with a statement that clearly showed that I had reference to groups of people in Canada who have taken it upon themselves to interfere with the Minister of Labour and the government by running up and down the country and passing resolutions on what they consider to be the wise way in which to deal with an exceedingly dangerous problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Name the groups.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no need.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The United Church?


John Horne Blackmore: I deliberately left
the groups unnamed. I should not be surprised if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would rush in and place on Hansard the names of a whole lot of people

Supply-Labour
I did not specifically mention. That is a shameful thing to do and utterly contemptible. What I have said is sufficient.


Mr. PROBE:: Why not be courageous?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Church of England? The United Church? The Presbyterian Church in Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not be a man
and name them.


John Horne Blackmore: I prefer to use a
little diplomacy and decency in dealing with this matter. I do not hesitate to name them from fear. I am not afraid of any man in Canada, or of any group of men, but I do not think it is fitting to name them. I do believe that a number of people have made themselves busy in connection with this problem when they should have been wise enough to remain in the background and leave the matter to those who had the responsibility to decide what was the wise thing to do. It was to them I was referring, not to the member for Vancouver East nor any member of the C.C.F. group. When I want to refer to them I will name them on the floor of the house and give them a chance to answer.


Norman Jaques: My previous question I
suppose should not have been directed to the Minister of Labour, but it just cropped up. I am not criticizing the Minister of Labour at all over the fact that prisoners of war still remain here as prisoners of war after the war is over. I am also aware that their treatment in this country is humane. But it is the principle of the thing I do not like. I do not believe the end justifies the means. That is not a philosophy to which I subscribe. If we follow the practice of keeping prisoners of war here in Canada a year after the war is over, maybe two years for all I know, that sanctions the practice in other countries where prisoners of war are not humanely treated, where, in fact, they are being barbarously treated, and I intend to refer to that on another item in the Department of External Affairs. I do not want the minister to think that I attributed any criticism to him, because this matter is not really his responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A week ago to-day I asked the Minister of Justice a question with regard to triple pay at Hamilton. The minister replied that the government had not been asked for an opinion on the matter, nor was any opinion given. A few days later I received a telegram from E. B. Jolliffe, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, giving me the text of a telegram he had sent to the
Minister of Justice, bringing his attention to the fact that on August 22, both by air mail and by telegram, the union had requested the Minister of Labour, under P.C. 9384, to give his permission to the union to prosecute the company for violations of the wage control order. The letter which Mr. Jolliffe sent to the Minister of Labour stated the name or names of an employee or employees who had received triple pay, and made the specific request required by the order in council for permission to prosecute. Mr. Jolliffe also expressed his view as to the "absurdity of the government countenancing the open and continuing violation of the wage control order by an employer while asking the employees to respect that order." The president of Stelco, he pointed out, "frankly informed the industrial relations committee, of which two ministers were members, that non-striking employees would be paid triple wages, which is clearly contrary to P.C. 9384." The Minister of Labour replied to Mr. Jolliffe's letter under date of August 23, acknowledging the letter but not even indicating in his communication what the matter was about. The letter simply stated that he was asking the advice of the minister of labour for Ontario as well as the advice of the regional board of Ontario before replying to this request. I should like to ask the minister-


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friend read the rest of the letter?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I had better put the whole letter on record:
August 23, 1946
Dear Mr. Jolliffe:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 22, and before replying at length I am asking the advice of the Minister of Labour for Ontario, as well as the advice of the regional board of Ontario.
The steelworkers' request for an increase, as you are well aware, has not been before the regional board of Ontario in the form of an application. Nevertheless, the board's interest in the point you raise is obvious and I wish to have the benefit of the advice of the chairman as well as the advice of the Minister of Labour for Ontario because the dispute is basically one coming under the provincial jurisdiction, before replying to your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Humphrey Mitchell.
I am not commenting on the letter-it seems to me that it should be framed-but what I should like the minister to tell us, now that it is out in the open that this request has been made, is what the government's attitude is towards the company's violation of the wage control order.
Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I can only say this, that when I hear from the people I referred to in that letter I shall be glad to give the hon. member an answer, and not before.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: There is just one
question I wish to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is asking what is the attitude of the minister with regard to the company paying overtime pay in this case. What is his attitude towards the union members striking against the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The thing cuts both ways.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: That is a fair
question.


Mr. MASSEY:: May I refer the minister to Hansard of August 26, page 5421. I have sent for a copy, but it has not arrived yet. In the course of the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of National Defence for Air I addressed a question to the minister for air in regard to the attachment of Royal Canadian Air Force officers to the national employment service in Toronto, and suggested to him and strongly urged upon him that that attachment continue. He replied as follows:
That is not a matter which comes within the air force; that is under the Department of Labour, and anything like that would have to be arranged by that department.
Has the minister any knowledge which he can give the committee immediately of what the programme is in that regard?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think these officers
are seconded-that is the term they use-* from the air force to the Department of, Labour in the city of Toronto, and we are at present in correspondence with the department with respect to the future activities of the men in question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
V,3. Labour Gazette and other publications authorized by Labour Department Act-further amount required, $4,526.
['I think these officers\nare seconded-that is the term they use-* from the air force to the Department of, Labour in the city of Toronto, and we are at present in correspondence with the department with respect to the future activities of the men in question.']
John Oliver Probe: I have not taken any time of the Minister of Labour or of this committee during any part of the discussion of the estimates on labour, but I wish at this time to associate myself completely with the other members of the C.C.F. group in the opinions which they have expressed, and I believe that fair-minded members of the House of Commons will feel that they are doing their proper duty with respect to labour.
With respect to this particular estimate for the Labour Gazette, I think the .minister has in the Labour Gazette an outstanding publica-fMr. Knowles.]
tion. I always appreciate getting it, and I know that labour groups throughout the country look forward to it. There is a great deal of information, statistical, national and international, with respect to labour matters. I should like however to voice a suggestion which I am sure the minister will take in what he is pleased to call "a kindly way", and that is that the Gazette comes out just a little bit late. I know his difficulties in the matter of compiling the statistics which go into the Gazette, and assembling them, and so on. But it seems to me that statistics which require a longer time to prepare and verify could be included in a later edition of the Labour Gazette, so that information which can be compiled locally can be kept up to date instead of being a couple of months behind. I do not wish to take any more of the time of the committee, but I do feel that this department is giving a service to the country generally in that publication; I should like to see the service made even better, and for that reason I am offering this suggestion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to thank my hon. friend for the very kind things he has said about the Labour Gazette. We are having difficulties with paper and printing, but I shall be glad to look into the aspect of the matter he has just mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1,1. Departmental administration, $767,480.
Thomas Reid: Nothing comes before members of parliament that is more important than the estimates. They provide the one opportunity the ordinary member has to discuss these administrative matters. I suggest to the minister that at the beginning of the next session the estimates be brought down within a week after the opening of parliament, so as to give members a chance to deal with them. Throughout the whole session we should be discussing these estimates, not, as happens year after year, on the eve of our going away. I make that suggestion seriously, in order that we may have a proper opportunity for discussion.
Will the minister give consideration to the remarks which we made on the fisheries estimates, affecting the United States and Canada and the continental shelf?-because these matters are very important.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I assure the hon. gentleman that the matter will receive consideration, and I think the proper form for it is in the food and agriculture organization

Supply-External Affairs
of the united nations. The constitution provides that that organization is set up for securing improvement in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all foods and agricultural products, and its functions are to deal with the conservation of natural resources and the adoption of improved methods of agricultural production. "Agriculture" is defined in the constitution to include fisheries. That is an organization that has been set up comprising some fifty-odd nations and the purpose of the constitution includes the conservation of food products and natural resources, including the fisheries. The proclamation made by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico is aimed at the conservation of the resources of the oceans, and would I think be one of the very interesting subjects to be dealt with on an international level. As the hon. member knows, Canadian representatives are taking an active part in the deliberations and representations of this food and agriculture organization, and he may be sure that the matter will not be lost sight of.


Gordon Graydon: I find myself at a disadvantage this morning in attempting at this stage of the session to discuss in any great detail matters relating to external affairs. The pressure of the session at this hour precludes that. I am sorry it is so-not that the committee will miss very much from any contribution that I might normally make, but that observation does apply to many other members who are interested and who have followed keenly external affairs in this and previous sessions.
I wonder if the committee will bear with me for a few minutes while I discuss one or two of the major points of interest to Canada from the point of view of external affairs.
I should like first of all to refer to the question of the standing committee. This standing committee on external affairs has had this session, for the first time, the consideration of estimates of a government department in full. In other words, the Department of External Affairs has been the guinea pig for a new experiment in the specialization of the efforts of members of this house. The setting up of the external affairs committee was undertaken in the first instance after considerable pressure and many suggestions by the opposition and members in other parts of the house as well. We had gone too long without a proper external affairs committee meeting regularly each session as a standing part of our procedure, and so when parliament met last, September I welcomed the suggestion of the government to set up a committee which had been asked for on
so many previous occasions. I also welcomed the opportunity of having the estimates of the department referred to that committee. No other estimates in full of an entire department had been so referred to a committee before, and I wish to make this observation, which I hope will be constructive.
I do not think we can any longer carry on without being made ridiculous in the eyes of the public generally under the system of parliamentary procedure which we follow in this house, having regard to the volume of business and the amount of money that is being expended by the dominion government. We should be bringing about some change in the consideration of departmental estimates. I agree with what the hon. member for New Westminster has said. I believe his views are shared by every member of this house who wishes to do a decent job for Canada, as I am sure every member does.
I do not think we can hope to retain public confidence if we continue to have the estimates dealt with as they have been during the past week. I am not blaming anyone for that. I do blame the whole parliamentary procedure, and I would blame parliament itself if we continued that system. We cannot afford to do so. My suggestion therefore is this. The external affairs committee has gone over the estimates of external affairs in detail, with great care, and over a considerable period, and I think it is time for parliament to make its decision and see to it that we bring under the same policy other departments of government. Then there will be no difficulty about last-minute consideration of estimates being rushed through in this way. If they are rushed through at least a committee will have previously dealt with them. But that is vastly different from the present practice of having item after item passed through, as we have witnessed this week, without the slightest attention being given to anything in detail. Indeed, many items have passed respecting which there has been very little knowledge on the part of any member outside the government or the head of the department concerned.
In this house we are not mobilizing the brains and energy that we possess. There are members who are not given an opportunity to play their proper part in the general discussion and examination of expenditures, and after all, that is one of the major parts of our business as members of parliament. But if we adopt the principle of having estimates referred to committees -we may not be able to do that with regard to all the estimates at the next session, but at least wre can continue the experiment that has been initiated

we can specialize in the
Supply-External Affairs

work and give every member of the house an opportunity of taking part and making his proper contribution as the session proceeds.
The utilization of the full time of every member of the house is the least that the public can ask of its members in the commons. The massive programme of legislation that parliament is now asked to deal with calls for specialized and modernized methods of consideration.
I should like now to make one or two brief observations on the committee's work. It was a good committee; it did a good job, and I wish to pay a tribute to the care and consideration which every member gave to the work, particularly the chairman of the committee, the member for Cochrane, who has presided over it since its inception. A good many sittings were held, and the deliberations did credit to the members of the committee and all those involved in the work. Its recommendations, while not voluminous, were such as, I believe, parliament may properly be asked to concur in. One suggestion was the recommendation for an international hour each week in parliament. What do we mean by an international hour? We spend hour after hour, day after day, discussing domestic questions. I should like hon. members to calculate from their Hansards just how much time is taken up in a discussion of external affairs and international matters. It is nothing short of a disgrace. I do not want to attribute that to anyone in particular, but to the whole house. I want to take my share of it, but I do not want to take my share of it much longer, and that is why I am making the suggestion.
Perhaps one of the most important parts of Canada's business is her international business. The whole question of peace and war -and is there anything more important to the Canadian people than peace?-the whole question of our international affairs has been by the pressure of things relegated to the background of parliamentary consideration. What is the reason? The reason is that we have not an hour or any special period set aside for dealing with external affairs on a regularized basis. The very fact that in the last day of the session we are dealing with external affairs for the first time in any big way is the best argument that I can bring forward to support my contention. I suggest to the committee, and I think parliament should concur in it and the government should take cognizance of it, that one hour a week be given to the discussion of external affairs. We could call one item under departmental administration or some other item which would give us an opportunity to discuss the matter. There should be a change

in the rules so that at the next session at least one hour a week will be given over to this important matter. Look at what has happened. Almost every day since parliament assembled last March some kind of an international conference has been going on. What reports of these conferences did hon. members get? We always get them, eventually, but we are never brought up to date. We should be brought up to date, because actually there are legislative assemblies in which Canada is involved, and in which Canada is taking a part, which are just as important as, and sometimes more important than, our own House of Commons when it is dealing with domestic affairs. Therefore I say we cannot go on any longer without setting aside an hour for the discussion of international matters.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, but I shall not deal with it at any length to-day, namely, a better system of control of international expenditures which Canada is about to make. That is a matter of grave concern, a matter of serious moment to the people of Canada. In the domestic field we take great pains to make sure that there is a comptroller of the treasury who watches or at least is supposed to guard the expenditure of money. In the international field we are only in the embryo stage, but before we go any farther it is the committee's proposal, and I think it will meet with parliament's approval, that we should take care that this country should not attempt to keep up with any of the international Joneses, in any big way. Up to date Canada has not done that. I am cautioning the government and parliament so that we shall not attempt to change that policy, but that we shall see to it that the taxpayer's money, whether it goes into domestic affairs or international affairs, is cared for and that we shall get a dollar's value for a dollar spent.
I should like to deal with many other matters which were brought up in the committee, but I have not the time at my disposal this morning to do so. I do wish to make one or two references to our position generally in the external affairs department. I admit that last spring the government went part way in acceding to the suggestion which had been made so many times, and also may I say to the suggestion which had been appearing on the order paper in the form of a resolution. That was done when the bill was introduced. The government finally did come around at least to establishing the right of the government to appoint a separate full-time minister of external affairs. I regret exceedingly that

Supply-External Affairs
when the bill was passed by parliament something was not done to implement the principle which had been adopted by parliament. I hope that we shall not continue any longer in Canada without a separate full-time minister of external affairs. Of course if the Prime Minister were here he would take umbrage at what I am saying and would say that I was reflecting on him. That is not a very good argument, particularly when no one intends to reflect upon him. I wish to say that the Prime Minister's position at the moment is the best argument that we could have for a minister of external affairs. He is finding the burden heavy; he has not been able to be in the House of Commons more than a small fraction of the time this session; and even at this moment, on the closing day of the session, he is unable to be with us. He ought to be the first one-and the government-to admit that if ever there was a need for a full-time minister of external affairs it is now. I hope the government will not try to face parliament any longer in another session without a full-time minister in that department.
May I also say by way of criticism that I do not think the Department of External Affairs or the minister of that department should carry all the information about external affairs in their vest pockets. The people of Canada and parliament have not been taken as fully into the confidence of the ministry on matters of external affairs as the country was entitled to. Let me give an example. We had a commonwealth conference of prime ministers. The Prime Minister went over and came back. There was no report to parliament, and no chance for discussion. The whole matter is still standing over and parliament is proroguing. That is a pretty good argument for the fact that the Prime Minister did not have time. Of course 'he did not have time. The reason he did not have time is that there was not a full-time minister of external affairs to handle at least part of the work in connection with it. In addition to that, before the Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs went to the peace conference no opportunity was given to parliament to discuss the whole problem of peace and Canada's possible participation in the conference, as was done prior to the San Francisco conference, which was of great value to the delegates who were in attendance. May I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that on these two occasions I think there was a flouting of parliament, because we should have known something both about the commonwealth conference and about the peace conference. In all fairness that information should have been given to the people's representatives.
We have another situation which calls for some remedy and much more severe criticism than I am going to give it. Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I say, I do not think we should go out of our way to attack the government, nor should we raise criticism unnecessarily in regard to external affairs. But I tell you, sir, that what I am saying to-day is much more restrained than what under ordinary circumstances the conditions call for.
In the matter of external affairs, as they affect this country, we must stick together, regardless of what our other difficulties may be. Canada must have a united voice in world councils if at all possible. But that must not be used as an excuse or a cover to stop normal criticism by parties in the house on those occasions when we believe that certain reforms are required. For instance, let us consider our position with respect to the United Kingdom. The right hon. Vincent Massey has been back in Canada since last May. and since that time there has not been the slightest hint of any appointment being made to fill his place in one of the major diplomatic posts created by Canada outside this country. In a delicate time like this, in this critical period of international affairs, there should be no such hiatus between one man's leaving a post and another taking his place. Yet no excuse or reasons are given. We are told simply that the position is open and that it has not been filled.
The same could be said with respect to Australia. Since last May no attempt has been made to fill that post. Yet we know that Hon. T. C. Davis left there last May. There is no suggestion of any appointment to fill his place.
With respect to South Africa the situation is even worse. No appointment has been made there since Mr. Burchell left, a year ago this month. We have had no permanent commissioner in South Africa in all that time.
Our position with respect to Eire is not quite so bad. Since Mr. Merchant Mahoney died last spring no appointment has been made. But that is not as serious as our position with respect to South Africa.
Chile is one of our major South American posts, but it has gone vacant since a year ago last July.
So far as India is concerned-well, I am tired of asking in the House of Commons when this country is going to accept India's invitation to exchange high commissioners. That invitation has been in the hands of the
Supply-External Affairs

government for years. Yet we have no suggestion that an appointment will be made even in the near future.
In my opinion this constitutes a series of dangerous diplomatic defaults on the part of this country. I am sorry to see it taking place, and I should like to be sufficiently severe with the minister that he would see to it that the condition is remedied immediately, in the interests of Canada.
As to the department itself, let me say that without having a full-time minister we are following a dangerous course. In the department one finds public servants whose competence is unsurpassed by any others in the public service of Canada. I make no reflection upon them when I say that we cannot allow a department, even one with good men in it, to grow up like Topsy, without a full-time minister. Everyone knows what it means to have team-work between a full-time minister and those who serve under him. I suggest we cannot allow this default to continue, because a departmental reorganization is needed, one which would include a new minister of external affairs.
Canada is in a position where she should take a more forthright stand respecting her Arctic problems. Our failure to assert ourselves and to, announce a clear and definite policy in Arctic matters may have a damaging effect upon Canadian-United States relations of the future. One of our greatest friends is the republic to the south of us. I hope that in the days which lie ahead Canada's position with respect to her Arctic relations may be defined and clarified.
I am hopeful that the bonds of unity which exist among the various units of the commonwealth will be strengthened as time passes. I believe I would not be transgressing my rights in the matter of speculation if I were to say that I look forward to the day-and I suggest we should be preparing for iU-when Canada will be the centre, the heart, of the great British commonwealth of nations. I hope that day may come. It may not be in the near future, but, after all, there are some things concerning which we must take a long-range view.
My observations have been somewhat hurried, because of the reasons I set out earlier. But I must say in my closing remarks that this party, as well as the government, is interested in our position in international conferences I cannot help thinking of the vital importance of some of these meetings. As I sat watching the atomic energy commission meeting in New York last June one of the things which struck me most forcibly was this: Sitting in the second row of the visitors' gallery, while

atomic energy was being discussed and measures drawn up for its control, was a little eleven-year-old girl, with the customary pigtails and ribbons. She was there with her mother, and I suppose no one was taking less interest than she was in the discussions. But whether she had any interest in it or not, as I sat there I thought that there was no person around the council table or in the galleries that day who had a greater interest in decisions with respect to atomic energy than did that child in the audience. In this day and age, with a world so concentrated, when distance has been reduced to an almost irreducible minimum and the world instead of being a great globe has become a shrunken ball, a world in which science has placed its most destructive weapon, it takes no more than a layman like myself, and those who surround me in the house, to realize what this means in future world affairs.
It is all very well to talk about the stopping of military aggression. But an aggression just as important as military aggression is taking place to-day: ideological aggression must have defences placed against it. I say with every bit of conviction at my command-and indeed I would say more if it were not this late hour in the session-that this country has to give what lead it can in seeing to it that we do our share to meet that ideological aggression. Make no mistake about it; it is serious and vital. This country cannot afford either domestically or internationally to adopt anything which savours of reaction, no matter where one finds it. So far as this country is concerned, human values must come first-and I am not using the word "maybe" when I say that. I am sure I shall have support from all over the chamber when I make that statement. The cornerstone of peace must be based upon economic and social justice in this world. Without that we cannot have permanent peace, as I understand it, in the days that lie ahead. The little peoples of the world have to have a break. I believe their era is just around the corner and I would hope that it is here to-day. I want to conclude, and this is my last sentence.


Angus MacInnis: Your last conclusion.


Gordon Graydon: My last conclusion.
I am getting more like some ministers of the gospel eveiy day, but this is definitely my last conclusion. I am not an expert on external affairs, and there are not many of us who are, but there are some simple conclusions which laymen like myself can arrive at from considering the world picture. I refer particularly to the communistic doctrine which I regard as a pretty dangerous thing for this

Supply-External Affairs
and other countries. There is abroad in the world to-day, as I have said, a struggle between two ideologies. Having that definitely in mind I think one of the difficulties we are facing with respect to those who embrace communism is this: I do not care if Russia wants communism; that is her business and I am not going to interfere nor do I think any one has the right to interfere. Let her have communism if she wants to-


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But we do not want it.


Gordon Graydon: There may be some places where it works, but it won't work here. I think it is our job and I think it is the job of every nation in the world to follow the system that is followed in many rural communities, the good neighbour policy. I think the rural good neighbour policy is one that the nations of the world will have to follow if we are going to have peace and permanent peace. It is a very simple one. The best neighbours we had on the farm were those who helped us when we were in trouble. When we needed extra help on the farm we "changed works" with our neighbours. An international exchange of works on the same basis as that on which the rural communities of Canada have changed works through all the years is what we need. But at the same time the best neighbours we had were the neighbours who did not try to run our household at home, who minded their own business in the process of being good neighbours. That is all I ask of the nations of the world to-day. There is a lot of international business to be minded. On the other hand, let us make sure that in doing so we do not try to reach our long hands into the internal political and economic set-up of other nations, and let us ask the other nations to do the same thing with us.
For that reason I think one of the best things, perhaps one of the best advances toward world peace, is for people and nations to respect the political set-up of other nations and not attempt through some means or another, devious, secret or otherwise, to upset the political set-up of another. That is where I say that so far as communism in Canada is concerned, we want none of it. We are not going to stand for it in Canada. But on the other hand let us not in the international field attempt to tell any nation how it should run its government. We have plenty of difficulty in finding a way to run our own. So I say to the members of this committee that we should in the interests of world peace apply the rural type of good neighbour policy. This should be applied to the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, to the United States, to the United Kingdom, to Canada and all other nations of the world. It is a sensible policy, it is one by which no one will be running into danger.
The armed forces brought us victory in this war, and I think it is not too much to say that they and others in the world are looking to the statesmen of the world to keep the victory that they won. That challenge is ours.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I am sure that every one of the hon. members who have remained to the end of the session would welcome the opportunity of putting before the public his views on matters of international consequence. That is our right if we choose to do so, but we have to choose between one thing or another. If we want to continue here for more days, it is our right to do so, but I think we should determine which course we are going to follow. If we are going to adhere to the programme which has been laid out, I do not think it would be fair for me to take much time of the committee to put my views on record with respect to international affairs, and I suggest that other hon. members of the committee should take a like view of the situation unless we change our programme and decide that we are going to sit several days longer so that each one of U3 will have an opportunity of saying what he feels may be of some help in the settlement of the difficult international situation in which we find ourselves. I am quite prepared to abide byi whatever may be the decision in that regard; If those of us who have stayed here to the end want to make that end some days later, I am quite prepared to take my share of the time, but if we determine to adhere to our programme I do not think I should take any more time now.


Angus MacInnis: I agree fully with the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have to make up our minds and make them up quickly as to whether we are going to prorogue to-day or whether we are going to go on to next week. I pointed that out yesterday in the debate on the broadcasting corporation loan. Nevertheless I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Peel, who pointed out that it is rather too bad that we find ourselves in this position at this time.
Fairly early in the session I think it was that the Prime Minister made a statement that there was hardly an item of business coming before parliament which did not impinge in some way or another upon our
Supply-External Affairs

relations with other countries. In that way he was emphasizing the importance of international affairs. As far as the estimates before us are concerned, they are in a position no other estimates are in. They were considered minutely by the committee on external affairs. Unless we follow the second suggestion of the minister and continue this discussion for several days I do not think there is anything more that one can say in the circumstances.
I should like to say a great deal but I shall end by making a reference to one of the closing points made by the hon. member for Peel. He said that he hoped that some day Canada would be the, heart of the British empire. Perhaps that is a laudable desire, but if my hon. friend will examine it a little further he will find in that desire the root cause of much of the international trials and tribulations that have beset the world for so many years. That is nationalism. I do not care particularly whether Canada becomes the heart, the lungs or the liver of the new social order, but I do hope that Canada will take her full share in building that new social order, and that it will be based on peace and on the good neighbour policy.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the hon. member that we should have regard for the position of all hon. members. If there are to be speeches made I think we shall have to take the second course and continue to sit here so that all may have an equal opportunity. We shall either have to be forbearing, or go on and let each one have his opportunity to speak; because I do not think it would be fair to attempt to accommodate two or three or three or four members and then have the rest of us forgo what is the natural desire of each of us when opportunity offers to express his views upon these important matters. I do not want to close the discussion, but I think we should realize that if a few do insist on participating, they will have to share with us the responsibility of going on for some days next week.	[DOT]


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, this puts
me and puts the committee in a very awkward position. In the opinion of some of us the most important debate of the session should take place on these external affairs estimates, but as usual they are brought up at the very end of the session. I think this is the third or fourth occasion on which I have had to
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
speak in the very last hour of the session on this question of external affairs. It is all right to say, as some have said, that we can leave it to next session. We tried very hard yesterday afternoon to get the radio question left over to next session, but the government would have carried on the house for another month rather than do that, I certainly do not want to delay the house more than is necessary, but what am I to do? How would it be if each group were allowed to leave it to one of its members to express their views? The Conservatives have spoken and the C.C.F., and if I might be permitted to speak for this group, and then perhaps the odd independent, we might get through. We could save an hour by not stopping for lunch.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Norman Jaques: No, Mr. Chairman. I am asking whether my suggestion would meet with the approval of the house.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The acting leader of the C.C.F. has withdrawn.


Norman Jaques: The acting leader of the C.C.F. said what he wanted to say, I suppose.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No, he did not.


Norman Jaques: Then let him speak so far as I am concerned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is every member's right to speak, and each one will have to make his own decision in view of his responsibility both to his own conscience and to his fellow members of parliament.


Norman Jaques: If I have to decide between my own conscience and the conscience of others, I must consult my own, because that is the only one I am responsible to.


William Ross Macdonald: Perhaps it would meet with the approval of the committee if the representative of the Social Credit party spoke for not more than five minutes. A representative of the Progressive-Conservative has spoken, and a representative of the C.C.F. party spoke for not more than five minutes.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if a representative of the Social Credit party speaks, one of the independent members is going to speak. We know that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and myself take quite different views on foreign affairs. I suggest that we should be sporting in this matter. I intended to make a speech myself on foreign affairs, but at this stage I suggest we cooperate and that no one speak longer than three or four minutes.

Supply-External Affairs


Norman Jaques: It is not much use my attempting to say anything in five minutes. Unlike some other parties in this house, the Social Credit party has no facilities with the C.B.C. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister might see to that, so that we can put our views before the people.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Your leader gets on the air periodically on free time.


Norman Jaques: I have only time to make a protest. With respect to the foreign policy of this country the people of Canada are committed to policies of which they know nothing and on which they are not consulted, and which this house never discusses. That is a fact, and it is an outrage and a scandal. At this moment a peace conference is sitting in Paris and this house has not had one minute to discuss Canada's policy at the peace conference. We know nothing and we are not allowed to know anything except what we are told by a lot of commentators and newspaper correspondents who use a brush dipped in red ink to colour the news.
I had prepared a statement which I believe would have been a valuable addition to the debates of this house and would have given valuable information to the people outside the house. I might ask why it is that this particular department, the Department of External Affairs, is always the last to come up, ever since I have been in the house I think, and always the excuse is made:	You
cannot speak now, there is no time because we want to close the house to-night. It is amazing. We talk about a new social order, about world government, that Canada is going to take its share in international affairs, and so forth; yet there is not one word of discussion in this house. I suppose under the circumstances I cannot say anything more, except to register the strongest possible protest at the way this department is and has usually been left to the end, so that no discussion is possible. I can only say that it is not by accident.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just before the vote carries I want to register in support of the other speakers, a strong protest against this most important subject coming in the dying days of the session. I believe it is wrong policy in these very serious times, when the issue in Canada is not east against west; or whether we shall have, say, socialism now in Canada, but is world reestablishment and world peace. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure us that when the house meets next January it will have an opportunity to discuss foreign affairs early in the session?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry to have to make any challenge against these protests of an arrangement having been made to bring these estimates on at this late date; but I have heard no one suggest what other matter that has been here dealt with should have been deferred in order to give consideration to these estimates. Hon. members must realize that parliament has been working pretty steadily, and I do not think there have been many things which hon. members would say should not have been dealt with, or should not have been dealt with when they were dealt with. I appreciate that hon. members would like an opportunity for a fuller debate. There can be that opportunity; if hon. members want to continue the session it can be done; but I do not wish to accept the suggestion that it is not by accident or by the ordinary happening and succession of events that we are in this position at this time.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I accept fully what the Acting Prime Minister has said. Nevertheless I would ask him whether he will try to see that this unfortunate-I do not think the word is too strong -situation does not occur again. It seems to me, in spite of the truth of all he has said, it could easily have been avoided if estimates were not left, and particularly these estimates, to this point. I leave it there. I think he will agree with what is said, that it is unfortunate that this matter, which may be and probably will be overwhelmingly more important than most of the things we have discussed, cannot be adequately dealt with. I suggest that on a future occasion it should have some precedence, and not come, as it so often does, at this stage, when we are in the dying hours of the session and must be reasonable and, as he says, forbearing with each other.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I can see the Acting Prime Minister's point of view to some extent. But I remember that in the early days of this session there was a government resolution to set up a committee to discuss and come to an agreement on a Canadian flag, and we spent three days talking about whether we should set up the committee or not, when we could have done so in five minutes, because ive had the committee anyway. Who was responsible I do not know, but those three days would be very valuable right now.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I am not getting up to take part in the controversy over the situation existing at the moment. I appreciate fully the position the Acting Prime Minister is in. In recent weeks he has been endeavouring to bring this parliament to a close without depriving anyone of the opportunity to speak.
Supply-External Affairs

I have been in consultation with him in recent days and I know what his plans have been; it has not been in his mind that anybody should be prevented from speaking. At the same time this is the parliament of Canada, and any hon. member has the right to speak at appropriate occasions, and he has that right now.
I wish to say only two things. At the beginning of this session I took the opportunity of making some suggestions with respect to the time allowed for the consideration of the business of parliament, namely the voting of the people's money for the carrying on of the affairs of government. I think that is at least as important as any other work we do, and perhaps as important as all the rest put together. And it gets the least consideration. What I did at that time was to make several suggestions for the consideration of the house and the government: Hansard, page 36. They were as follows:
1.	-That the estimates, as is now customary, should be tabled immediately after the speech from the throne is disposed of.
That is generally done.
2.	That the budget should come down at the same time or closely following.
This has not been the. rule, and was not the rule this year. We are asked to consider the expenditure of money before we are shown how the money is going to be raised.
3.	That motions to go into supply should be made at least once weekly, on a day when such motion is debatable, so that members of parliament may not be denied the right to discuss matters they may regard as of pressing public importance.
That has not been the policy. We' have considered from time to time some of these estimates, but most of them have come on in these latter days.
4.	That much more time should be allowed for consideration of the estimates and that definite days from the beginning of the session should be set aside for this purpose.
And this concluding sentence:
I do not think we should be giving the major part of our time at the beginning of the session to the consideration of legislation with the temptation to do too much talking and then be crowded into pushing these appropriations through without due consideration. The unseemly and unbusinesslike rush in voting away the people's money at the end of each session is a procedure unworthy of a responsible parliament.
Speaking as leader of this party, I am not aware that any further time will be taken on any of these items in supply. I think the suggestions which have come from all sections of the house to-day, and the suggestions which

I made and have now repeated, should receive the consideration of the government for another year.
I have just one question on external affairs estimates and then I will be through; and so far as I am aware, under the existing circumstances there will be no further time taken by members of this party on any of the other items. I am suggesting to no one here that he avoid speaking, but so far as I know there will not be much more time taken in this session. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the government of Canada had approved a wheat agreement in 1942. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sure; 'he said he did not think it had. I would like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could answer that question. And then this other:	if the
government did agree to it, I should like an explanation of why a one-nation agreement was entered into with Britain, when it was already committed to the 1942 agreements.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Dealing with the matter last referred to by the leader of the opposition, may I say that the members of the wheat committee of the cabinet were aware of the negotiations that were going on, and they never requested the representatives of Canada to withdraw from the discussions, but the discussions never reached a point where the question arose as to whether they should be approved or not.
With respect to the time taken in the house, I think each one of us must beat his own breast and recognize his own part of the responsibility. I should like to remind the house that, seven weeks of this session were taken by us in discussions of votes of no confidence, first on the address, then on the original motion to go into supply, and third, on the budget. I think that those three debates would have resulted in the same votes had they been very much shorter than they were. I am not casting blame on anyone; I am just pointing out that each one of us has his responsibility in that regard.
At this moment may I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report progress and ask leave to sit again this day, so that I may have the privilege of moving that there be no intermission.
Progress reported.
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved:
That the resolutions considered in committee of supply this day and reported be read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Housc of Commons


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move that there be no intermission this day, notwithstanding standing order 6 or the terms of the resolution passed by the house on July 22, 1946, in relation thereto.
John Bracken: I have no objection whatever to the motion, but most of us in this party will be unable to be here for the next hour.. However, we are leaving it in the hands of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and we shall be well represented. After the splendid address he gave this morning, I do not think he will occupy much more time.


William Irvine: Do I understand the motion is that there shall be no period for lunch or supper until we have finished? If that is what it means I do not think it is a good polic3L While I am at lunch, perhaps some matter in which I am interested will be passed, and other members may be in the same position. I do not like the idea of not having a recess for lunch. I do not mind supper so much.


Norman Jaques: We still have a pretty heavy docket, and it is possible that even without any further discussion on this particular item the house will not finish to-day. On the other hand, we may get through earlier than we expect. In either event there would be an opportunity to discuss the particular item if the minister would consent to hold it over until, in one way or the other, it is settled. If the house adjourned to-night and carried on next week there would be no harm in discussing it then.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am in the hands of the house. I am prepared to stay here until Christmas and am ready to have any item stand at the request of any hon. member. If hon. members prefer to have External Affairs stand for the time being and deal with other items, that is agreeable to me. I am prepared to accept anything that will suit the convenience of hon. members.


John Bracken: May I make a suggestion? The Acting Prime Minister has made a suggestion which I think the house might be disposed to accept. The hon. member for W'etaskiwin feels keenly on this subject and it is his right to speak if he wishes to do so. The Acting Prime Minister has suggested that we deal with other items and,
if time remains, to give the item that stands further discussion, that can be done. Would that not be acceptable to the hon. member?


John Horne Blackmore: Let item 41 stand.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the -mair.
LEGISLATION House of Commons-
126. Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $346,107.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Who is responsible for these estimates?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: His Honour the Speaker.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many temporary employees on the protective staff have been working on a full-time basis for more than three years?


James Horace King: There are five who are temporary and will be kept on full time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many hours do the protective staff work; are they on eight-hour shifts?


James Horace King: The protective staff works eight hours a day.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How long do they get off for lunch?


James Horace King: They have an hour and a half.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How long do the protective staff in the galleries work these days? Are they on from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night?


James Horace King: My information is that they work for eight hours and from time to time they are allowed to leave the galleries for a rest.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: My information is that there are temporary members of the protective staff who are paid at the rate of S4 a day-I am excluding the cost of living bonus just now-and that they are on a temporary basis although they are employed the year round, which to my mind at least, unless there is a good reason for it, seems unfair. What is even more unfair, in my opinion, is the differential which exists between the rates of pay of the protective staff in the House of Commons and the protective staff in the Senate. What is the reason for that differential?
Supply-House of Commons


James Horace King: There has been a little discussion about that matter in the house before. The hon. member will understand that I was appointed Speaker last September. We had a session which lasted until the middle of December, and we started again in March. As hon. members know, it is difficult for the Speaker to be on duty in the house from morning until night. I have not had much time to investigate and to see what improvements can be made in the house along that line. The House of Commons, in common with other departments, was obliged to take on temporary officers and employees to replace those who left the service of the house to join the forces. It has been the policy of the civil service commission not to appoint any new permanent employee; but the hon. member and the committee may be assured that the staff of the house are satisfied with their positions. Naturally they are nervous about their jobs because they are temporaries. That is only human. It is quite natural for them to wonder what is going to happen to them in the future. During the recess I hope that I shall have time, and I am sure I will, to look into these matters; we shall make recommendations to the civil service commission to make permanent those who should be permanent, and we shall find out if it is possible to give them an increase in salary.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I hope His Honour realizes that I am not criticizing or casting any reflection upon him in any way. I realize that he has scarcely had time yet to go into all these details. I am merely bringing these points to his attention so that, if there are any injustices, then these injustices can be rectified. It is unfair to have men who are employed all year round paid at the rate of $4 a day, even with the cost of living bonus. It is extraordinarily difficult for a man to bring up a family on that salary at the present time. We in this chamber should set a better example to the nation as a whole. I should like His Honour to consider putting on a permanent basis all these men who have been here for several years and who are still on a temporary basis, although employed the year round. I should like His Honour to consider increasing the salary of these men so that they would at least be paid the same as the officials of the Senate who work fewer hours. We get excellent service not only from the protective staff but from the messengers and from all others. I think we should pay more recognition to them. The most appropriate way for doing that is to ensure them that their living standards will be as high as possible.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: I have had an opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the Speaker from time to time. I am perfectly satisfied that he is working on the problem and that the staff of the house is being well treated and will be well treated in the future.


Gordon Graydon: May I just add a word of agreement to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Perhaps it may be a help to His Honour to know that he has considerable backing of the House of Commons. I think His Honour will find that all through the house there is pretty general agreement that something should be done for these men because they are doing a magnificent job. We ought to support the representations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in that connection, so that His Honour the Speaker will know he is not alone in his desire to see that these things are done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Libras of Parliament -
ISO. General administration, $88,39.1.
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Has any progress been made in the matter of indexing the books in the library? Several hon. members have referred to the fact that it is difficult to find just what is contained in the library. We know it contains almost everything, but we do not know just what is available at any particular time or where it is. Has anything been done so far to implement a recommendation that an index be made of all the books in the library?


James Horace King: I have noted the remarks of the hon. member. He will understand that during the war the government decided that all money should be used for war purposes. Since the war is over, we have started to make some improvements in the library, such as lighting and so on. We hope that in the next few months many more improvements will be made. I approve the remarks which have been made during the session, and I shall be pleased if the government decides to give a national library to the country.


Gordon Graydon: May I make a suggestion to His Honour. If during the interim period he feels that he will perhaps have more time to deal with some of the urgent matters connected with his duties, may I suggest that he give consideration to the question of whether or not we have the best seating arrangement in the House of Commons from the point of view of carrying on our duties.
My second suggestion is that he watch carefully-and I caution him against this-

Supply-Library of Parliament
the installation of loud speakers on each desk, because that would be about the worst thing that could happen in the House of Commons. In deciding on that, I trust His Honour will not overlook the fact that somehow or another there should be better acoustics. The press cannot hear what is going on. It may be a good thing for us perhaps that they do not always hear everything, but in any event the press particularly have a responsibility that is second to none in the country, because what they hear here they tell to millions of Canadians; therefore it is important that they hear what is going on in the house. Some acoustic change should be made, but we should not have more noise in the house which would come from loud speakers; we should have less noise, but that noise should be heard.
These two suggestions might properly be considered by His Honour. I think we are badly in need of reform in that direction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Senate-
746. To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the present session which commenced on March 14, 1946, and ended on April 17, 1946, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence, after the Easter adjournment of parliament on April 17, 1946, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at tile end of the recess which commenced on that date, or, in case any such member did not return to his place of residence during said recess, an amount equivalent to what would have been his travelling expenses if he had returned to his place of residence during the said recess, $5,000.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The language in which this item is expressed does not convey what was intended by treasury board when the estimate was prepared. This language was copied from a former statute. What was intended by treasury board was that the travelling expenses of members who returned to their constituencies during the Easter vacation would be reimbursed to them, or that if they did not return at that time, but did return on some other occasion, the expense of one trip would be reimbursed to them. The language as it stands at present appears to go beyond that.
I move:
That the explanation of item 746 in the estimates be amended by deleting all the words after the words "on that date" and substituting therefor the following, "at any other one time during the present session."
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
House of Commons-
750. To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the present session which commenced on March 14, 1946, and ended on April 17, 1946, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on April 17, 1946, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or did not return to his place of residence during the said recess, an amount equivalent to what would have been his travelling expenses if he had returned to his place of residence during the said recess, $12,000.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The same amendment is required in this item. I move:
That the explanation of item 750 in the estimates be amended by deleting all the words after the words "on that date" and substituting therefor the following, "at any other one time during the present session."
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
93J/. Office of the special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada-further amount required, $1,673.
Gordon Graydon: Has this special commissioner anything to do with the arctic situation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: During the war there were United States forces located in Canada, carrying out some work in northwestern Canada. It was found necessary to ask them to comply with Canadian regulations. A special commissioner was appointed so that applications could be made to him instead of to Ottawa, for the purpose of saving time. He is still in control of joint operations in that part of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
803. Departmental administration-further amount required, $15,000.
Gordon Graydon: Are the stamps to which I referred earlier to be sold, or will they be withdrawn? I wish I had studied them more closely before the matter was drawn to the attention of the minister on the earlier occasion because, not only is the plough a left-handed plough, but I find that the man driving the horse has undertaken to walk over the ploughed ground instead of over the sod.
Supply-Agriculture


James Joseph McCann: Although the hon. member may have travelled a great deal, perhaps this article from the Ottawa Journal of August 24 would be of interest to him:
Left-handed plows may be "strangers" to most of the members of the commons, but in at least one county in the United States they are 1,000 to one over right-handed plows.
Following the recent discussion in the house in which the appearance of a left-handed plow on the new Canadian issue of the eight-eent stamp was questioned, the philatelic division of the Fost Office Department received a clipping from Missouri.
Dated O'Fallon, St. Charles County, Missouri, the letter declared that "out of 1,000 plows, not more than one is right-handed."


Gordon Graydon: I would say that we are still from Missouri.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administrative service-
69S. Departmental administration-further amount required, $5,640.
John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have the indulgence of the committee for about ten minutes; I promise I will not exceed that time. I want to refer to the sugar situation in Canada. On, July 9 I made a speech on this matter; what I said at that time I should be quite willing to say again. I would point out to the committee and the country as a whole that all is not well as regards Canada's sugar supply. I urge my fellow Canadians not to be lulled into a false sense of security in respect to sugar. There have been things happening lately which have lulled people into a false sense of security and I urge Canadians to be on their guard.
On August 6 the Acting Minister of Finance made a statement to the house to the effect that conditions had improved in the sugar situation and it was possible to give the people an additional amount of sugar. He said, as reported on page 4346 of Hansard:
Although world sugar supplies remain below requirements, the worst appears to be over and a gradual improvement in the future is to be expected. The improvement to date has made it possible for the wartime prices and trade board to make an increase in rations to household consumers. . . .
I would point out to members of the committee that that statement requires to be considered in the light of figures . which were issued two days later by the bureau of statistics. The figures of sugar on hand as of July 13 were as follows:
Raw sugar Refined sugar Pounds Pounds	Total
1945 ... 144,806,728	94,667,906 239,474,634
1946 ... 115,047,793 119,467,906	234,515,699

As of July 13, 1946, we had 4,958,935 fewer pounds of sugar than we had in 1945. That is a serious comment on what the minister said and it is difficult to reconcile those figures with his remarks. What is the situation with respect to the world supply? It is quite as alarming. May I quote from an editorial by Wellington Jeffers, financial editor of the Globe and Mail, which appeared on July 18, 1946, as follows:
I mention the world at large because estimates for world output are that in 1946 production will be 7-3 million short tons less than in the average 1935-39 years, and 750,000 tons less than in 1945.
And again:
A million ton increase in the western hemisphere does not make up for the drop in war-torn Europe.
Figures to support Mr. Jeffers' remarks and what I have said are to be found in Lamborn Sugar Market Report, dispatch June 18, 1946, and in Willett and Gray's Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal, dated after August 1. These two publications constitute the finest authority on the American continent, and they establish conclusively what I have said regarding the dangerous shortage which obtains in the world sugar situation. Beet sugar production in Canada is the lowest since 1923; I should like to quote again from what Mr. Jeffers said:	-
Sugar controllers this year, for beets at least, deserve a dunce's cap for permitting the lowest production since 1923.
The United States has done much to help her producers of beets and beet sugar; Canada, on the other hand has done much to hinder her producers of beets and beet sugar. There should be called immediately a conference of beet sugar producers and refiners. The whole matter should be talked over, and a group of incentives should be decided upon which would stimulate beet sugar production in Canada to the maximum capacity of the present plants; and also which would encourage the establishment of more beet sugar plants in Canada enough to make secure the sugar supply of Canada.
I am utterly amazed at the indifference which prevails in this house and in the Dominion of Canada with respect to the sugar supply. The way in which the sugar administrator in this country has been treating the sugar beet producers is absolutely extraordinary, as contrasted with the way in which such producers are treated in the United States and Great Britain.
Canadians are assuming that their sugar supply is safe. But we could have a dreadful emergency in which we could suffer painfully

Supply-Justice-Espionage
for the lack of sugar. I have done my best to bring to the attention of this house and of the people of Canada the genuinely dangerous position they are in with respect to sugar. I urge the government now to take such measures as will provide that such splendid factories as, for example, the two factories in Ontario, shall not be closed. One of them is closed, and the other one is in danger of closing. A few provisions by this government would remedy the situation. I urge, Mr. Chairman, that the government act before it is too late, before we shall have nothing left to do but groan about what we might have done with respect to the sugar supply of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
7S9. To provide for expenses in connection with the royal commission investigating the disclosure of confidential information to agents of a foreign power, $37,000.
['Before I leave the chair, I want to take this opportunity of expressing my personal thanks to all the members of the house for the kindness and courtesy they have shown me while I have been presiding over this committee.\nResolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.']
William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the matter upon which I wish to speak is well worthy of discussion in this house for several days. I mention that to emphasize its importance inasmuch as what I have to say must now be said in five minutes or so.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister and of the committee a matter or two in connection with the royal commission known as the Taschereau-Kellock commission which I think affects directly the civil liberties of the Canadian people. I think we ought to know now, if we have not known before, whether that commission was appointed to inquire into the alleged espionage charges brought forward by Mr. Gouzenko, or whether it was a commission invested with the powers of a court to pass judgment. I need not waste the time of the committee by quoting the reference to the commission which I have here, but if hon. members will read it they will find no indication there that the commission had any powers to find judgments on the individuals whose comings and goings they might have found it necessary to investigate.
I find that in the case of Doctor Shugar- and in view of the limitation of time I am going to centre my attack particularly on this case-the commission practically did pass judgment before Doctor Shugar was even charged with any crime, and for some time Doctor Shugar was at a great disadvantage. He was discharged from his position, largely I believe on the report of that commission. That is one of the questions I should like 63260-361
the minister, if he can, to ansiver. Just what was the reason for the discharge of Doctor Shugar?
I have here a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare to Doctor Shugar, dated July 19, 1946, in which the deputy minister says:
Your letter to Doctor Morrell of July 17, asking for reasons for the notice of termination of your employment with this department, has been referred to me for reply.
This was considered necessary in view of the report of the royal commission, appointed under order in council P.C. 411, February 5, 1946.
Here is another letter that was addressed to Hon. Doctor McCann, Acting Minister of Health and Welfare, dated July 27, 1946, by the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Association of Scientific Workers:
The executive of the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Association of Scientific Workers would like to bring to your attention the following statement concerning Doctor David Shugar, approved at a meeting of the branch on July 25:
"The executive of the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Association of Scientific Workers condemns the dismissal of Doctor David Shugar by the Minister of Health and Welfare on the basis of the final report of the Taschereau-Kellock royal commission. Such a procedure is all the more remarkable since the commission's opinions concerning Doctor Shugar were not acceptable to the courts on a previous occasion; in fact, were insufficient even to warrant his committal for trial. This precedent constitutes a threat to the security of all civil servants.
The executive does not presume to judge the innocence or guilt of Doctor Shugar, nor should the Minister. That is a matter for the courts to decide. Therefore, in view of the fact that no such decision has been made, the executive is of the opinion that the minister was not justified in taking action, and calls for the immediate reinstatement of Doctor Shugar."
We trust that, since Doctor Shugar's dismissal becomes effective August 1, you will give this your immediate attention.
The Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare in reply uses the following words -I shall quote only the germane part of his letter:
I may say that Doctor David Shugar was seconded to the Department of National Health and Welfare from the navy for a special assignment and, having completed that assignment, his services would have been dispensed with despite any other circumstances that have arisen in the meantime. I cannot see from this action that there is any threat to the security of any civil servant. I am not judging either the innocence or the guilt of Doctor Shugar any more than the executive of your association says they do not presume to do.
That is the point at issue. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that there are two different reasons given for the dismissal of Doctor Shugar. I could go on and give the committee public statements which have been made, one

Supply-Justice-Espionage

made in this house by the minister of health, as well as statements reported in the news in the daily press dealing with Doctor Shugar's special work and that he was not really discharged because he had completed his job or because there was no more need for him, but that he was in fact discharged because of the report of the royal commission. It may be too late to do anything about the matter now in the case of Doctor Shugar and others who suffered, as they must have suffered, as a result of that report, especially when that report, when published, left the impression both on the public and on the court and jury that they were guilty. That was an injustice. The dismissal of a man even before he is charged cannot very well be justified'. That is the protest in the interest of civil liberty which I desire to make. I want to add that this matter has outside and international implications which, had I the time, I should very much like to comment on.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: "Carried" will not help anybody, I can assure the hon. member although I intend to be brief. It was my intention to have made a- statement at more length with reference to this matter, but in order to do so as other hon. members have done in this committee, I will forgo a great deal of what I had intended to say. But for a moment or two I want to take the opportunity to express my complete disapproval of the actions of the government, the Prime Minister; the Minister of Justice and the Taschereau-Kellock commission for the way in which they have carried out these investigations. I am not the only one who feels that way. I had intended to read into the record three newspaper clippings expressing the opinions of three different people. The first is an article in the Ottawa Citizen of August 27, and is entitled, "Canada as the Cockpit." That in the main agrees with what I would have said to-day. The second one I would have read into the record is from the Citizen of August 24 of this year, and is a report of a meeting held at Geneva Park, Lake Couehi-ching, Ontario, on August 23, including a statement made by Mr. B. K. Sandwell, editor of Toronto Saturday Night, whdn he was addressing the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs. The third one is a long statement, which I would recommend anyone to read who can obtain it, and is taken from the Canadian Mining Reporter of August 23, 1946, and is headed, " Leslie Roberts Speaks His Mind." It is a cold-blooded and clear analysis of the performance which this commission, supported

by the government .and under government instructions, carried out during these spy trials.
I believe that a great deal of panic entered into the situation. The government's fear of communism or Soviet Russia or something else prompted it. But I submit that fear of anything is no excuse for the abrogation of the rights and fundamental liberties of individuals, and if we are to have the kind of country we would be pleased to have our new flag fly over, and be ready to stand up and face the rest of the world, as justly believing in our democratic institutions-which I do most emphatically and with great conviction and sincerity- we must prove to the people of this country and of other countries that our democracy provides those freedoms which we expect to have and to which we have a right.
I am going to give one quotation, the fourth I shall mention, from an article in the Reader's Digest, bearing on what I have just said and written by Mr. John Foster Dulles; it appears in the August issue, and the writer states this, on page 15, after dealing with a great many international affairs:
No programme is fruitful if it is merely against someone or something. Successful programmes are those which are constructive and creative in their own right. What we need at this critical juncture is an affirmative demonstration that our society of freedom still has the qualities needed for survival. We must show that our free land is not spiritual lowland, easily submerged, but highland that, most of all, provides the spiritual, intellectual and economic conditions which all men want.
I commend that most sincerely to the perpetrators of this flagrant abuse of our Canadian customs and principles.
In conclusion-and this will be the final conclusion-I should like the government to give serious consideration to three matters which were mentioned by the hon. member for Cariboo. First, exonerate publicly those persons at present not acquitted by the commission's report but not formally charged in the courts; second, or properly charge them and give them the fundamental right to prove their innocence; and, third, take steps to see that those already tried and found guilty and at present undergoing punishment be treated in such a manner as to preserve their physical and mental health and maintain the pride of Canada in her democratic institutions and her claim to just treatment of all citizens.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Just one word. I do not w'ant to provoke a debate at this time. I appreciate the views which have been expressed by the two hon. members. I shall merely repeat that in positions of responsibility there are frequently things which are very

Supply-J ustice-Espionage
distasteful but which have to be done. All one can do is attempt to fulfil his duty and discharge the responsibility that is upon him, no matter how distasteful it may be.
The hon. member for Swift Current has said that there was apparently panic prompted by fear of communism or fear of Russia. There was no such panic and there was no fear of communism or fear of Russia, but there was fear of the apparent development in the public service of Canada of a loyalty to ideals other than Canadian ideals which would have been very detrimental to the national life of this country, and it was to search out that thing and rid the public service of Canada of it that the royal commission was established.
With respect to the quotation that nothing good comes from actions directed merely against something, I beg to differ, because I think much good will come from action directed against the spread of that mentality in the public service of our country.
Third, with reference to the recommendation of the hon. member that we consider exonerating those who have not been charged, or charge them, all those against whom there is in the report the suggestion that they have been guilty of conduct which would constitute offences will be charged before the courts and allowed a full opportunity to face the accusation and to disprove it if it is unfounded, unless it is found, by counsel selected by the department, that there are not sufficient grounds for even having a trial, and if that is found by counsel it will be published.


Thomas John Bentley: Will they be exonerated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, if that does not imply as great exoneration as the report itself implies criticism, I do not know what other conclusion would be drawn from it. If the department, having employed counsel, gets the opinion from counsel that there is not enough to justify a trial, that advice is accepted by the department and its decision upon it made public, that should amount to an exoneration.
AVith respect to those who have been found guilty, hon. gentlemen may be assured that they are receiving the ordinary treatment that is accorded to all those who are unfortunately subject to detention in the penal institutions of the country. There should not be any impression that there is any animosity against individuals. There is detestation of what was revealed in the trials, but it is not directed against individuals; indeed, there is much sympathy felt for individuals because even the report shows that they w'ere on a 63260-36IJ
slippery path. I think one of the great advantages of the publicity given to the report has been to awaken the conscience of large multitudes in Canada to the realization that there are slippery paths which it is advisable to avoid.
I may say to the hon. member for Cariboo that at no time was Doctor Shugar a permanent employee. At one time the confidence of the minister responsible to this house for the conduct of the department was shaken, so far as Doctor Shugar was concerned, to the extent that he no longer wished to be responsible to parliament and did not wish to continue that person in his employ, and that is something which all of us have to face up to. I know of an interview between Doctor Shugar and the minister in which the attitude of Doctor Shugar was such that, even if there had been nothing else, his minister would probably not have considered retaining him in his employment. Doctor Shugar was perhaps convinced, because of the depth of his feeling in the matter, that what he was saying was so, but he stated there that the royal commissioners had deliberately falsified the evidence. I would not retain in the service of my department anyone who expressed to me the opinion that two of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada had deliberately falsified evidence.


William Irvine: I must accept the minister's statement, but I would not leave the matter there if I had time, because there are other phases of the situation with which I should like to deal. I might say, however, that it could not but be prejudicial to the case of Doctor Shugar to have him discharged. However, we shall have to let that go now. As far as its international implications are eoim-cerned-and there are international implications-I would say that the evidence which we have against some of our own citizens, and which has sent some of them ito gaol and may send others, was based upon the statements of a man who had been a traitor to his own country and whom we protected, and while protecting him we were endeavouring to punish people who were alleged to have committed similar offences in our own country. That is probably permissible in law, but it is not a very sound basis on which to build a case. I should like to get at some of the things that were quoted and were reported in the royal commission's report coming from the lips of Gouzenko, which not only had to do with individual cases but which have to do with Canada's international relationships, directly affecting ourselves and Russia. I can
Supply-External Affairs

quote some of these, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee. However, may I ask the minister whether it would not be possible to have tabled the entire exchange between the Russian embassy here and the government with reference to this affair.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All I can say is that the request will receive consideration. There will be no time to comply with it this session, but we shall have time to give it consideration before another session is convened.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
J)l. Departmental administration, $767,480.
Norman Jaques: It seems that we have disposed of the business that was before us a good deal more expeditiously than we had thought possible and it is not yet two o clock.
I should like to make this statement, and if I am not interrupted it will not take me very long.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member says that he wishes to make a statement, which he is about to read. I must remind him that under the rules he is not in order in reading from a written and previously prepared speech. Standing order 41, paragraph 293, forbids this, and I think the rule should be enforced.


Norman Jaques: Then I must say that, had that rule been complied with strictly, the house would have adjourned three or four months ago and perhaps sooner than that. The only reason I propose to stick to my notes closely is that I wish to expedite the business of the house. I can get through so much quicker; that is all. I find it an effort to speak anyway and, when I have to think as I go along, I am so much slower.


William Ross Macdonald: I recall distinctly Mr. Speaker directing the attention of hon. members on several occasions to the rule in this regard and I felt it my duty to remind the hon. gentleman of it.


Norman Jaques: I see the point, Mr. Chairman. I will merely stick closely to my notes. I speak as a member of this new committee on external affairs. When the committee started I was quite enthusiastic because I thought the opportunity would be seized to use the facilities of the committee in order that we might get first-hand information on the various international questions which are of so much importance at the present time. I thought we could call witnesses from both sides, and then, having heard both sides, we

could make up our minds as to the truth. But that did not seem to meet with the approval of the committee until, toward the end of the proceedings, permission was requested by the Zionists to bring witnesses before the committee to put their case about Palestine. That was agreed to, provided that the Arabs had a similar privilege afterwards. That was the only discussion we had during the sittings of the committee on external affairs, and since Palestine is the master key to an understanding of the international situation I should like to devote a few minutes to that subject, not so much to the actual conditions in Palestine itself as to the zionist-communist forces which seek world control. With regard to Palestine itself, of course there is a virtual state of war. There is also an insidious and persistent propaganda in favour of world government and a world police state. To-day speakers have apparently expressed approval of the present state of the people in the world, but I should like to quote from the oldest and perhaps the most respected Liberal paper of the old country, which is the weekly called Truth. This is what the editor has to say on world conditions at the present time:
Over half the world to-day men are allowed to live only if their lives be deemed inoffensive to the gangs which have butchered their way to power. They are kept in complete slavery, fed on lies, their thoughts manipulated this way and that by puppet tyrants. Is this the reign of civilization, or is it the return to the barbarian, made terrible by his having learnt, down to the smallest detail, the meticulous organization of savagery as an instrument of power. Over most of the rest of the world, spread like a hideous gangrene, is an organized exploitation of human want, helplessness and misery so all embracing that entire natiras are smothered by it, and entire bureaucracies and armies caught up by the opportunity of the times to oppress, plunder and defraud the scores of millions who have no defence and no rights.
This is a matter of vital importance to Canadians. Only this morning, since I have been sitting in the house, I received a pamphlet headed "Protest the British Terror in Palestine!" The article goes on to say:
Palestine lies crushed under a regime of brutal terror for the last several weeks. Under the pretext of suppressing terrorism, the British labour government under the leadership of Attlee and Bevin have begun a campaign to wipe out the "Yishuv", in order to strengthen British imperialist domination over the peoples of Palestine and the near east. It is tragic to note, that since the crushing of Hitlerism, Great Britain, pretended friend of world Jewry, has been the first power to strike a heavy and shameful blow with the full force of her armed might against the Jewish people.
The sudden raids of June 29, can only compare with the brutal anti-Jewish terror of the nazis in the various ghettos in Europe at the time of Hitler's domination.

Supply-External Affairs
I am not going to read any more of that, but the point I wish to make is that the pamphlet which my correspondent tells me is being circulated by the thousands in Montreal is issued by the' Cartier council of the Labour Progressive party.
I do not want to be political; I am not speaking in a political sense and I do not wish to be taken as speaking in a political sense. I am speaking as a Canadian who wants to do what he can to preserve the freedoms which we possess at the present time. But I am bound to say this:	The leader of the C.C.F.
party (Mr. Coldwell) publicly has supported political Zionism not only in Canada, but in the United States, thereby deliberately inflaming ill-formed American opinion against Great Britain. I have been in the United States during this session, and I have addressed meetings there. The propaganda inspired by zionism in the United States against the British is a terrible thing. Even after the David hotel outrage, the C.C.F. continue to denounce British policy in Palestine as anti-Semitic and elsewhere as imperialistic. Palestine threatens the peace of the world. If Great Britain resists zionist demands to seize control by force of arms, the Jews, the communists and fellow travellers will stir up anti-British feeling everywhere. On the other hand, unless Great Britain refuses further demands for unlimited Jewish entry into Palestine, the whole Moslem world may be driven within the orbit of Soviet Russia. That has been the aim of socialist-supported communist policy in Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia, Spain, Argentina, India, China; while everywhere the lying, blackmailing, smear-bund goes to work, labeling as antiSemitic and fascist all opposition to this policy. And it all adds up, Teheran, Potsdam, Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks, in place of the Atlantic charter; Zionism, Palestine, Moscow, the Laskis, Baruchs and Morgenthaus, and the surrender of sovereignty; the spy ring, the smear-bund, the anti-defamation league, the Carlsons, Winchells, the Philpotts, Haltons, Dyson Carters, Raymond A. Davies and the rest of the red network. The communist Labour Progressive party, the C.C.F. and other fellow travellers all are-


Angus MacInnis: I hate to interrupt the hon. member in the enjoyment that he is now having in communing with himself, but when he refers to the C.C.F. as fellow travellers he has to withdraw the statement. Yesterday he said that the Liberal party was supported in the last election by the Labour Progressive party. If that is so, and I agree there are some grounds for it, and the Labour Progressive party did that in opposition to the C.C.F., how can the C.C.F. be a fellow traveller of the
Labour Progressive party and at the same time be opposing the Labour Progressive party? The hon. gentleman should try to put a little sense in what he says.


Norman Jaques: At the beginning I said this was not political.


Angus MacInnis: That is not the question.


Norman Jaques: I am stating only facts.


Angus MacInnis: When my hon. friend says he is stating only facts-


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman-


Angus MacInnis: The hon. gentleman says that he is stating facts -when he says I am a fellow traveller. As a member of the C.C.F. party I say to him that he is lying.


Norman Jaques: It depends on what you call a fellow traveller.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, of course.


Norman Jaques: My definition of a fellow traveller is this. When a man or a party continually supports the policy of another party, then I say that he or they are fellow travellers of that party.


Angus MacInnis: The C.C.F. has never at any time supported the communist party.


Norman Jaques: I will put it in this way: the communists and the C.C.F.'s support the same party.


Angus MacInnis: They do not,


Gordon Graydon: Yes, they do; they support the	Liberal party.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr. Qolding): Order.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member never said anything about the Progressive Conservative party.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr. Golding): Order.


Gordon Graydon: The Liberals and my hon. friend's party are in the same bed and cannot get out of it.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr. Golding): Order.


John Oliver Probe: He should be asked to
withdraw.


Gordon Graydon: You are in the same bed.


Norman Jaques: Let me qualify my statement. Fellow travellers are not confined to the C.C.F.; they are over here; they are in the Conservative party, and I know we have some in our party. I am not including members of the house. Do not misunderstand
Supply-External Affairs

me. I do not say that of members of the house. I emphasize that the communists have invaded every organization and every political party in this country and in every other country. If anybody doubts that, then I will say there were only twelve disciples and one of them was a Judas. However, all "fellow travellers" have consistently worked to undermine British prestige, authority and loyalty everywhere for the benefit of Wall street, Marx and Moscow.
But the truth is out.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get on with the Jews.


Norman Jaques: And the less interruptions I have, the sooner I will get through. The truth is out. The white paper and note recently issued by the British government state that the zionist terrorist outrages leading up to the David hotel bombing were not the acts of a few fanatics, but the deliberate policy of the responsible Jewish agency. There I quote the British white paper. British opinion is turning.
Let me quote from News of the World, which claims to be a paper with the greatest circulation in the world, and it cannot be accused of being Tory, or anything of that kind. In its issue of July 28, it says this:
The truth is out; the same truth that this paper has been printing for two years. A government white paper has demolished the popular editorial view that Zionist terrorism was the "misguided action of a few fanatics." It has proved the responsibility of a Zionist army, conscripted, trained and equipped by leaders of the Jewish agency.
Their formal expression of regret after the outrage in Jerusalem was but a mockery of the men who were killed. The underlings are behind barbed wire; but, what of the bosses? . . .
This paper can do no more than state once again the truth: Zionism is a political movement. and the leaders have as little compassion for the too-old-to-fight Jewish wrecks of Europe as concern for the Englishmen they kill. Their policy has had one-and only one-aim since Balfour was duped in 1917: the creation of a Palestinian Jewish state. No other country than Palestine was acceptable, for their state had to straddle the narrow bridge between east and west and be in a position to change at will the balance of power-in fact, to dominate the world.
A year ago the C.C.F. claimed that the victory of the British Labour party was a victory for the C.C.F. I am not denying that; I am not disputing that at all. But now they denounce the British foreign policy as antiSemitic and imperialistic. Let me quote from the Montreal Gazette of July 24, 1946:
Speaking to a large group of Montreal Jews recently Mr. Alistair Stewart, C.C.F. member for Winnipeg North said, "Many people think the British Labour party is allied with the C.C.F. party in Canada but that is not so. ' IMr. Jaques.l
There may be some similarity as to certain points, but the C.C.F. could never ally itself with a government that had broken a promise such as that to the Jews in Palestine." Politics of this sort, he said, were not within the spirit of socialism.
Urging the immediate entrance of 100,000 Jetvs into Palestine, Mr. Stewart ridiculed the idea that such immigration would lead to an Arab revolt.


Mr. McIVOR:: I rise to a point of order. I can stand a lot of listening, for a long time. But I refuse now to listen to a speech that is being read. The hon. member must deliver his material without reading it.


Norman Jaques: I am reading a quotation
from the Montreal Standard. But may I say this, that if members are willing to listen to one side of the story, why are they not willing to listen to the other side? We have heard the other side of this story, and it is about time this side was heard.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not mind if a man has something to say on a subject, and says it.


Norman Jaques: That is my job. That is up to me. The hon. member for Winnipeg North went on to say that he urged the immediate entry of 100,000 Jews into Palestine, and ridiculed the idea that such immigration could lead to an Arab revolt; the Arabs could never organize any resistance which could not be easily overcome.
But suppose the Arabs do revolt, and the revolt leads to a general uprising of the Moslem world, which it probably would do; what then? Will the hon. member for Winnipeg North, or will the C.C.F. leaders tell the Canadian people whom they would expect to put down the revolt? Would we expect Canadians to fight another war? If these Zionists declare war on Great Britain, as they have threatened to do, will the C.C.I., or will the hon. member for Fort William, tell us whether Canada would support the Zionists, or whether we would support the British? That is a nice question, and it is one which may have to be decided by the people of Canada before we are much older.
The real battle for the control of Palestine, the key to world control, will not be decided in the Holy land, but in the banks, presidential anti-rooms, and lobbies of parliament and congress. It is significant that two similar threats have been made against the British people by Wall street. The first threat was that, unless Bretton Woods proposals were accepted, there would be no United States loan. May I remind hon. members in the Conservative party that Viscount Bennett, as he is now known, voted against the Bretton

Supply-External Affairs
Woods proposals when the vote was taken in the British House of Lords, and was supported by a number of Labour members.
The second threat was that, unless the gates of Palestine were opened wide in contravention of the Balfour declaration, there would be no United States loan. Both these threats come from the same source. Two great and friendly nations, the British and the American, are being goaded into friction over the recent financial arrangements, while the American people are being stirred up against the British people by zionist. propaganda and hate. I am the personal witness of that propaganda in the United States. I am speaking to those people as much as I am to the people of Canada. That is the satanic intention of the hidden hand behind the scenes in all these arrangements. The essence of all international and financial policy is the centralization of power. Control of credit is the chosen instrument of the hidden hand for securing it. Such policy is the inversion of national and personal freedom.
Mussolini and Hitler are dead, and the war in Europe ended over a year ago. But the people of Europe are more hungry and more miserable than they were during the war. What is the reason? Famine can result from a lack of harvest or of transport; it can be imposed deliberately for political purposes. For political reasons German fertilizer plants which formerly supplied European farmers have been destroyed. No locomotives can be built in Germany until 1950. Stalin took the only food surplus area in Germany and now, as the socialist Daily Worker says, food is an international political weapon. You have only to see what has happened lately in connection with UNRRA.
Our political leaders have agreed to the uprooting of millions of peoples from their farms and homes who have been driven in midwinter like cattle across Europe to food importing areas. From Poland and other countries in eastern Europe millions of our former allies have been deported to Russia as slave labour. The orphaned children of these slaves, our wartime allies, are tubercular from starvation and hardship. We hear only of the sufferings of one people, the Jews. I am not saying for one moment that the Jews have not suffered; they have suffered, but millions of other people have suffered, and apparently we are not concerned with them in the least. They are suffering to-day as the result of policies agreed to at Potsdam and by other allied agreements.
We have told every individual in the industrial heart of Europe that for a generation,
no matter how hard he works his standard of living cannot exceed the lowest in Europe. What incentive is there to work, to put their hearts into restoring their countries, when they are told it does not matter what they do, their standard of living cannot rise? It is something like our prisoners of war who are paid fifty cents a day. As I said this morning, I am not blaming the Minister of Labour, but is that an incentive to get work done? Do we want Europe to remain a ruin, or do we want to restore it as quickly as possible? Many people pride themselves upon being progressive, but it seems to me that the idea of many of them is to progress backward from the spirit of the New Testament to that of the Old Testament.
All the terrible convulsions and troubles and upheavals in the world are the result of aliens seeking to impose their atheistic, oriental collectivism upon national cultures of individualism. Their latest plan is to vest the exclusive monopoly of the atom bomb with a few men whose motives would remain hidden from the rest of mankind. These are to be known merely as the atomic development authority and would have the power to rule all nations and all peoples. According to the plan the basic proposal is the destruction of all atomic bombs, but what it really means is not the destruction but the disposal of the atomic bombs in accordance with the terms of some treaty yet to be concluded. ADA- atomic development authority-would use the bomb as its teeth. To me and to others this seems more dangerous than the atom bomb itself, more dangerous than either nazi Germany or communist Russia, because there would be no appeal from its decrees.
However, there are people who see through this latest threat of the hidden hand. There are those, and their numbers are growing- I might say that it seems to me that Field Marshal Montgomery is one of them, if I can judge from his remarks the other day-who think it would be far more terrible for only one power to control the bomb. They think the atom bomb should and will fit into the defence calculations and precautions as all other weapons have fitted. These people see more danger in the control of the bomb than in the bomb itself, and they believe that the greatest deterrent against the abuse of that atomic bomb control would be the knowledge that the intended victims also had the atomic bomb.
If we would win the peace, as we won the war, for freedom and justice; if we would escape the serfdom of an alien collectivism, we must do more than denounce its agents.
Supply-External Affairs

Do not make the mistake that the end of the spy ring is the end of this danger. That was merely a spot caused by the disease, and you cannot cure a disease by curing the spots.
If we value anything more than our freedom, we shall lose our freedom. Peace can be imposed, but it cannot be maintained by force. Christianity and communism or collectivism, or zionism if you like, cannot unite to form a world government. No man or group of men ever can possess the vitrue or the wisdom to govern the world. World government means world dictatorship. Only crooks demand and only the craven desire security at the price of freedom. Our only hope for peace with freedom must be based on Christian principles, in the words of the Atlantic charter, and these are the words of the late President Roosevelt and the then prime minister of Great Britain:
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for the kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the antithesis of the order of tyranny which dictators seek to create. To that order of tyranny we oppose the greater conception-the moral order. Let our nations place their destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women, and their faith in freedom under the guidance of God.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I want to take just one minute. All of us regret that greater opportunity could not be afforded for the discussion of international affairs. The subject was opened very ably by the hon. member for Peel. He made a speech which was creditable not only to himself but to this house and we would have liked to have followed him with our own views but opportunity does not permit. I regret that at this late hour when we cannot discuss the matter we should have had to finish with what I am going to call the dog's breakfast which we have just listened to. There is one point that I want to make in respect to that speech. The hon. gentleman regretted that the fertilizing factories in Germany had been shut down. That is a regrettable thing. I do not know whether I would be in order, sir, in making a motion that this parliament undertake to send the hon. gentleman's speech to Germany, where no doubt greater crops will come as a result.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just wish to say a word as a result of the remarks of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Like the other speakers, I appreciate very much the protests made by the hon. member for Peel, and I regret very much that we have not more

time for this discussion of external affairs. I am firmly of the opinion that those who brand every progressive as communist and every innocent person with some old-fashioned ideas as fascist are not making any contribution to the development of this country or to the development of international peace.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: Before I leave the chair, I want to take this opportunity of expressing my personal thanks to all the members of the house for the kindness and courtesy they have shown me while I have been presiding over this committee.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved:
Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, the sums of $888,954,394.10, $142,644,296.99 and $2,000,000, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 393, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule:
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the schedule I would ask my colleague to move the same amendments that were moved to resolutions 746 and 750. That is to delete ambiguous language and replace it by language providing that the expenses paid to an hon. member of either house would be for his journey to his residence at Easter or on any one other occasion. '
['With the unanimous consent of the house the sitting is suspended until ten minutes to four.\nThe house resumed at 3.50 p.m.']
Mr. HOWE:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.

House of Commons


Gordon Graydon: Are these the only two amendments that were made from the beginning of the estimates to the end?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. I think the matter has been very carefully checked and the officials of the Department of Finance tell me that these are the only two amendments required to have the printed schedule conform with what has been agreed to by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the house until four o'clock I have to fulfil a promise I made to the leader of the house (Mr. Mackenzie) before he left last week, and that was to express his thanks and my own to all hon. members for the cooperation which has been extended to us in fulfilment of the generous declaration of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) before the Prime Minister left for his trip to Paris, that members would be disposed to be as helpful as possible in taking care of the business that would have to come before parliament. I do not think I can do better than communicate to the house the notes which the house leader left with me before he went away. He wished to say:
"With the indulgence of the house, always so courteously and generously given, I should like to make a few remarks before we prorogue.
"Outside the session of 1910, which was mainly engaged in acrimony"-I was not here then, so I take no part in that note- "this has been one of the longest sessions of the Commons of Canada." It has certainly been one of the most fruitful.
"I should like tO' utter a word of thanks in the first place to the leaders of the parties opposite, the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the leader of the Social Credit group, for their spendid cooperation without any curtailment of their responsibilities of constructive criticism.
"I should like to thank the chief government whip, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), and his assistant, the hon. member for Compton, (Mr. Blanchette). Also the chief opposition whip, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman); the whip of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); and the whip of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). I should like also to thank the various provincial Whips for their splendid cooperation.
"This year we have established a record in the number of committees of this house. There have been nine standing committees of the house, actively functioning. There have been six special committees of the house, who have all rendered great and devoted service. I should like to thank the chairman and the members of these committees for their assiduous and sustained attention to the work of parliament, and to congratulate them upon the results of their labours. I should like also to thank the staff of the Commons, the Sergeaateat-Arms, the messengers, and the boys who were so alert and aware in attending to our requests for papers and documents and the exchange of those friendly notes which make the work of parliament so pleasurable.
"Also, if I may, a word to these painstaking and patient and very efficient reporters of our debates, the staff of Hansard. I should like also to thank the clerks at the table for their unfailing courtesy.
"I should like at this time to say a word of thanks to Mr. Golding, the hon. member for Huron-Perth, for his devoted services as chairman of the committee of the whole, to which so much of his time has been devoted; and also, with the permission of the house, to thank the Deputy Speaker, whose benevolent neutrality has adorned his position.
"Last of all, Mr. Speaker",-I am reading from the leader's notes, but I know all hon. members would wish to be associated with it- "I should like to be permitted to convey to you, the thanks of this House of Commons for your gracious courtesy, for your splendid custody of the privileges of the house, and of the house itself, and for your unflagging industry in the high office which you adorn."
May I, without announcing any other business, now suggest that the sitting be suspended until 3.50 p.m. this day.
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his words of commendation of the officials of this house in their many different capacities. With respect to what he had to say concerning the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) who is not now -with us, I might make one observation: we have appreciated the way in which he has carried on in the house, but if I might express a
House of Commons

personal opinion I would say that when he is away and the Minister of Justice is leader of the house, we get along much better. That is not meant to be in any sense derogatory to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but it is meant to be a compliment to the Minister of Justice.
I do not know that there is anything more that I can say now. The compliment I offered to the Acting Prime Minister was a sincere one. When the Prime Minister himself went away I undertook to do my best to keep the government in the straight and narrow path. In that we were only partly successful.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was straight, but not always narrow.


John Bracken: We are going to keep on, and I am hopeful that the government will more and more continue to take our advice, and to the extent that they do we will still continue to try to keep them in office.
It has been a long session, and controversial in spots, but I would say that there is a better spirit between the members of our groups in the House of Commons to-day than there has been at any time since I have been a member. I am sure that this is a matter of gratification to all of us.


Angus MacInnis: I should like on behalf of this group to associate myself with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has said. I doubt, however, his sincerity when he said he hoped that the government would always remain on the "straight and narrow", because even if he were sincere he is, I think, of the opinion that they won't, and that that will give him his chance some time.
I am glad that he mentioned the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who is Acting Prime Minister. I had it in mind to do that if he had not done so. The leading of this house is not an easy matter, and the Minister of Justice has discharged that function with so much ability, tact and fairness that I think he has impressed all of us; and that, particularly, as he is a relatively new man in the house. It takes years to understand Beauchesne's rules, and to have got such a good grasp in so short a time-


Gordon Graydon: It takes centuries.


Angus MacInnis: It takes centuries; I do not expect to live long enough to get beyond the first two or three pages, and those do not matter. I am glad to associate myself wholeheartedly on behalf of this group with what the leader of the opposition has said.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod) :: Mr. Speaker, I have noted on almost all occasions when words of felicitation are uttered in the house by the various groups that, by the time the government, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) have spoken, everything that can be said has been said and not much is left for this group to say on these matters. So all I will say at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that this group concurs most heartily in all the words of felicitation that have been spoken this afternoon.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, you and I have both been highly complimented. I presume you will allow me to say on your behalf as well as my own that we are both very grateful to the hon. members for the consideration they have shown us.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house, before you put the motion to adjourn may I table the answers to the questions which the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) on August 24 last, concerning R. 160165 Lowell T. Campbell, and appearing in Hansard of that date, pages 5321 to 5323 I have just obtained these answers and with the leave of the house I would like to have them put. on Hansard without reading them. As the house will remember, the hon. member for Lethbridge addressed to the government thirty-one questions. The answers are quite extensive. By leave of the house I would like to table them and have them printed in Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Walter Adam Tucker: The questions were as
follows:
1.	Was Lowell T. Campbell, R160165, discharged from Shaughnessy hospital on August 6, 1946?
2.	Was veteran Campbell's back in an iron brace to support an injured spine when he was discharged ?
3.	Had veteran Campbell been receiving $117 a month to support himself and five dependent children?
4.	Had Lowell T. Campbell's wife been lost to him in February, 1945, leaving him under the necessity of placing his children in the homes of various relatives?
5.	Would Lowell T. Campbell have been required to pay for each of those children, and

Veterans Affairs-Aircraftman Campbell
was he required to pay $25 a month for board and lodgings and pay additional costs to cover clothing?
Hon. members will of course see the significance of question 5. We are trying to assess the adequacy of $117 which had been allowed Mr. Campbell.
6.	Is each of these five children now between six and twelve years of age, therefore, requiring school supplies, in addition to the $25 per month for board and room, the cost of clothing, the cost of medical and dental care, et cetera?
7.	Would the British Columbia welfare organization demand at least $30 a month per child, plus family allowances, if that organization. were to assume charge of the children?
8.	Would the cost of supporting his five children therefore constitute for veteran Campbell a monthly expense of at least $125 besides the family allowances?
9.	Did the minister's department give effective thought to the question, how was veteran Campbell to get $125 a month out of $117 a month which the minister's department allowed hini?
10.	When veteran Campbell was discharged from Shaughnessy military hospital on August 6, was even the $117 a month cut off arbitrarily?
11.	Was veteran Campbell discharged from Shaughnessy military hospital on August 6, with a cheque for approximately $20?
12.	Would $16.70 of his cheque be apportioned to veteran Campbell's five children to support them and fit them up for school, leaving, of course, $3.30 to support veteran Campbell until with an iron brace on him to support an injured spine, he could take a job and receive his first pay cheque?
13.	Did veteran Campbell on March 19, 1942, enlist as a member of the ground crew of the K.C.A.F.?
14.	Was veteran Campbell at the time of his enlistment sound in physical health?
15.	Was veteran Campbell sound economically on enlistment? That i3, was he able to work at various jobs and support his family, and was he doing so-raising a family of young Canadians for future time?
16.	Was veteran Campbell upon enlistment sound mentally and emotionally? I may say to the minister and to the committee that veteran Campbell has been lacerated because of certain remarks put on his file which would seem to reflect upon his intelligence and emotional stability. This has greatly aggravated the mental anguish under which this veteran now suffers, and that is the reason for the question.
17.	Was veteran Campbell injured while on military duty?
18.	Of the successive incidents which resulted in further development toward veteran Campbell's present state of partial physical incapacity wrere several the result of official decisions and actions taken by various men for whose official decisions and actions the government of Canada is directly responsible?
19.	For example, was it a Canadian officer before whom veteran Campbell came on sick parade on the April morning following his injury?
20.	Was it a Canadian officer who on May 5, 1942, told veteran Campbell that his back was normal, and that the injury -was just a sprain, and that aircraftman Campbell could carry on with full duty?
21.	Was it a Canadian officer who assigned aircraftman Campbell to work in hospital at No. 2 S.F.T.S., Uplands, Ottawa, where one of this aircraftman's duties was to wax floors?
22.	Were they Canadian officers who, when aircraftman Campbell reported his condition to them, treated his reports lightly, asked him such questions as: "Where is the pain this morning?" in a partly flippant and ridiculing manner, and who treated him with physiotherapy by means of heat pads, while the aircraftman assured them that the pain was only intensified by the treatment?
23.	Was it a Canadian officer who, after June 24, 1942, ordered that aircraftman Campbell be sent to Ottawa civic hospital where under the care of Doctor Young a body cast was applied to the aircraftman for four weeks, and later a body cast extending down the left leg to the ankle for eight weeks, and later more heat treatments were given?
24.	Was it a Canadian officer upon whose orders aircraftman Campbell was then taken to the Daly building to Doctor J. P. S. Cathcart, psychiatrist, where he was questioned about his past life, his family and his father's family?
25.	Was it through the remarks or hints of a Canadian officer that it was intimated to aircraftman Campbell by October 1, 1942 that the aircraftman would do well to seek his discharge?
26.	Was it through orders of a Canadian officer that discharge papers were brought to aircraftman Campbell to sign, which papers the aircraftman refused to sign?
27.	Was it through a Canadian officer's orders or hints that the padre, approximately the last of October, 1942, told aircraftman Campbell that he had been struck off strength, thereby causing aircraftman Campbell to ask for immediate discharge and to receive it on October 31, 1942?
28.	Was it on order of a Canadian officer that aircraftman Campbell was transferred to Christie street hospital, from which aircraftman Campbell was discharged on December 21, 1942, and sent home to Alberta?
29.	Was it on orders of a Canadian officer that Campbell was discharged from Belcher hospital, Calgary, on May 5, 1943? May I at this point observe, for the sake of hon. members who, I notice, are following my remarks closely, that it was clearly to be seen that the aircraftman was unable to do heavy physical work. And yet when he was discharged from Christie street hospital and sent home to Alberta he had no alternative but that of engaging in hard physical work such as ranching and other kinds of work he has been doing. The result was that, naturally, on account of his weakness, he became afflicted again and had to seek admission to Belcher Hospital. He was discharged from Belcher Hospital after a very few days. Of course by that hon. members can clearly see that someone representing the government needed to have his actions reviewed.
30.	Was it on orders of a Canadian officer that Campbell, in his weakened condition, was denied allowances adequate to support himself and his family without going to work at heavy labour?
31.	Was it through Canadian officers that Campbell was refused attention by Shaughnessy hospital when he applied for attention, (1) alone; (2) in company with the provincial president of the army and navy veterans in British Columbia, although later, after Camp-
5752	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs-Aircraftman Campbell
bell had consulted Doctor Frank Emmons, he was finally admitted to Shaughnessy hospital on January 16, 1945?
The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The Taylor Brace, which is the usual support worn for such back conditions as Mr. Campbell's, was supplied in February, 1946. Whether he was wearing this On his discharge from hospital is not known.
3.	Immediately prior to discharge from hospital Mr. Campbell had been receiving hospital allowances in a total amount of $117 per month.
4.	Statements by Mr. Campbell are available to the effect that his wife deserted him in December, 1942, and that a divorce was granted on February 5, 1945.
5.	There is no official information but it appears that Mr. Campbell himself made arrangements to pay $25 a month for the care of each child and to supply necessary clothing.
6.	The ages of Mr. Campbell's five children range from 5 to 12 years.
7.	In a letter signed by Mr. Campbell dated January 29, 1946, the following appears: "I went to the Provincial Welfare and made enquiries about placing them in a foster home. I w-as told by Mr. Blanchard of the Provincial Welfare that it would cost $30 plus Family Allowance per child."
8.	See answers to 5 and 7.
9.	The maximum hospital allowances permissible under the regulations in Mr. Campbell's case are $117 as an in-patient or $132 as an out-patient.
10.	Hospital allowances cease on discharge from treatment and consideration is given to the possible award of pension at once. See footnote.
11 and 12. On discharge from hospital, this veteran would have been paid part or all of the balance of hospital allowances standing to his credit at that time. A copy of the ledger sheet has been requested from the department's district office but has not yet been received.
13.	Yes.
14.	Yes, as far as may be determined from
his own history and routine enlistment medical examination.	_	_
15.	From information available on his R.C.A.F. documents there is nothing to indicate his economic state on enlistment. There is nothing in his interrogation or examination to show that he was unable to work at various jobs and support his family. He was supporting his family prior to enlistment by farming, according to his enlistment statement.
16.	The question of being "sound mentally and emotionally" cannot be assessed, as a psychiatric record was not carried out at that time on entrance examinations.
17.	Campbell was not injured on military duty in the sense of an accident. He states that, when doing physical training, he felt a "sudden snap" in his back.
18.	The "successive incidents" referred to by Mr. Blaekmore do not appear on R.C.A.F. files and are not understood.
19.	Veteran Campbell reported in April at No. 1 Manning Depot, Toronto, to an R.C.A.F. Medical Officer.
20.	There is no R.C.A.F. record that any Medical Officer told Campbell that his back was normal on May 5, 1942.
21.	No record exists of Mr. Campbell being assigned to wax floors at No. 2 S.F.T.S. Hospital. Uplands, but, in accordance with common practice, patients in hospital, who are con-

sidered capable, are assigned to carry out certain duties. This is considered helpful to their recovery.
22.	No record exists of any conversation between Mr. Campbell and the Medical Officer when on sick parade in 1942.
23.	An R.C.A.F. Medical Officer had Campbell transferred from Uplands to the Ottawa Civic Hospital for further investigation and treatment June 25, 1942.
24.	A Medical Officer of the Department of Pensions and National Health arranged this examination by Dr. Cathcart.
25.	As consultations indicated that Mr. Campbell would not be of further service in the R.C.A.F., arrangements wTere made for a medical board in October with a view to discharge.
26.	Mr. Campbell signed the usual form of medical board proceedings on October 19, 1942.
27.	Following his medical board 19th October,
1942,	a category of "unfit for further service"
was approved. His discharge from the RCAF to the	Department	of	Pensions	and	National
Health was automatic following this.
28.	He was transferred to Christie street hospital on instructions by a medical officer of the Department of Pensions and National Health.
29.	He w'as discharged from Colonel Belcher
hospital on instructions by a medical officer of the	Department	of	Pensions	and	National
Health.
30.	Out-of-work allowances were paid following application by Mr. Campbell in January,
1943,	and continued with the exception of a period of seventeen days until his re-admission to hospital in April, 1943.
31.	Under the provisions of the order in council establishing the treatment regulations, Mr. Campbell was not eligible for further treatment under the Department of Veterans Affairs pending special authority by head office. Upon receipt of such authority he was promptly admitted to Shaughnessy hospital.
Note.-On February 9, 1945, the Canadian Pension Commission ruled that Mr. Campbell is entitled to pension for protruded intervertebral disc. Since the date of the ruling, Mr. Campbell has been continuously under treatment and in receipt of treatment allowances until August 6, 1946. On the day of his discharge from treatment, August 6, 1946, the district office forwarded a report for pension purposes indicating a disability of 100 per cent. The first pension cheque has already been issued.


James Horace King: With the unanimous consent of the house the sitting is suspended until ten minutes to four.
The house resumed at 3.50 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Bonner Larose, Esquire, Acting Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.

Prorogation of Parliament
In the Senate chamber, the Honourable the Deupty Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Marie Olivette Marthe Pepin Giguere.
An Act for -the relief of Evelyn Helen Deeb Ivouri.
An Act for the relief of Rose Dawson Brady.
An Act for the relief of Shirley Boyd Fuller Dichow.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Emily Young Crane.
An Act for the relief of Martin Thomas Walsh.
An Act for -the relief of Anna Blumenthal Gillman.
An Act for -the relief of Annie Solomon Birnbaum.
An Act for the relief of Katherina Demidovich Zouikin.
An Act for .the relief of Herbert Beat-son De Gruchy.
An Act for the relief of Luc Chadillon.
An Act for the relief of Mary Innocent Gorman Martin Gillean.
An Act for the relief of Maui-ice Olivier Singfield.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Ethel Anderson Hamill.
An Act for the relief of Allan Reginald Duncan Woolley.
An Act for the relief of Ida Portnoff Clarke.
An Act for -the relief of May Andria Thistle Shirres Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Florence Margaret Louise Jekill Wigget-t.
An Act for -the relief of Pauline Frances Beaton Bridgeman.
An Act for the relief of Mildred Helen Cavers Watson.
An Act for the relief of Paul Martial Chevalier.
An Aot for the relief of Dorothy Catherine Benson Hunter.
An Act for the relief of Pauline Francesca Evans Gladwish.
An Act for the relief of Mary MacDonald Short Browne.
An Act for the relief of Solomon Shulman.
An Act for the relief of Robert Patrick Warren.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Alvina Hirsch Sid-aw-ay.
An Aot for the relief of Sadie Joseph Saikaley Charles.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Corey Thomson.
An Act for the relief of Jean Wilbur C-assils Dawes.
An Aot for the relief of Jean St. Claire Macdonald Rou-tledge.
An Act for the relief of John Anderson Hutchins.
An Act for the relief of Ivy May Baylis Lariviere.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Gertrude McKn-ight Carroll.
An Act for the relief of Erminiia Taccani Ronearelli.
An Act for the relief of Violet May Armour Smith.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Caroline Lock Norman.
An Act for the relief of Blanche Belanger MuJlin.
An Act for the relief of Alfred Goodman.
An Act for the relief of Charles Thomson.
An Aot for the relief of Hannah Green Turton.
An Act for the relief of Ida Solomon Caplan.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Violet Louise Stargra-tt Burton.
An Act for the relief of Helen Louise Mitchell Meyer.
An Act for -the relief of Donald Dale Carr-H-arris.
An Act for the relief of Eugene Ernest Hubert George Colnaghi Williams Waterfield.
An Aot for the relief of Gratia Lauzon Rousseau.
An Aot for the relief of Laura Olive Byers Manley.
An Act for the relief of Vera Gertrude Horder Fournier.
An Act for -the relief of Julia Patricia Bvrne Cote.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Adelaide Grace Vennor O'Toole.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Doris Howard Clark.
An Aot for the relief of Helen Agnes Stuart Colt.
An Act for the relief of Alma Gosselin Caribonneau.
An Act for the relief of Florence Cleveland Smith das Baillets. *
An Act for the relief of Florence Winnifred Dunlop Starkey.
An Act for the relief of Francis John Stone.
An Act for the relief of Mary McCallum McNamara.
An Act for the relief of Leah Helen Shute Mam.
An Aot for -the relief of Cecile Simonne Robert Turgeon.
An Act for the relief of Edward Cotapschi
An Act for the relief of Catherine Youn°-Rivard.	"
An Aot for the relief of Mary Jane Michelle Ahern de Brabant.
Am Actfor the relief of Jean Ethelwyn Marshall Ross.
An Act for the relief of Frank Ernest Smith
An Act for the relief of Cleora Elizabeth Doyle Mastane.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Carr Johnstone.
an -act. ior tne reliet ot Marie-Rose-Yvette Breton Philips.
An Act for the relief of Barbara Laing Robertson MacNab.
An Act for the relief of Anne Goldsmith Glick.
An Act for the relief of Jean Alexandra Ougbtred Scott.
An Act for the relief of Charles Horatio Baldwin.
An Aot for the relief of Mary Slobodzi-an.
An Act for the relief of Edward Charles McKerness.
An Act for the relief of Ivy Anderson Lobb An Act for the relief of Yvonne Rachel Mayer Richard.
A-n Act for the relief of Nellie Izbitsky Abracen.	*
An Aot for the relief of Ellen Margaret Price Gar vie.
An Act for the relief of Sophie Shoob Na to vi ten.
An Act for the relief of Madge Aileen Hunter Parker.
[Stage Direction]
Prorogation oj Parliament
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Claire Yaroslawa Lvtwyn Pendiuk.	*
'An Act for the relief of Henry Wallace
A rn*Q 11
* An Act for the relief of Mary Norma Wickens
BiAnrAct for the relief of Mildred Emily Rogers
'^An^Act for the relief of Pauline Gregoire
G AnrdAct for the relief of Marjorie Maxwell Cleghorn Pope.	„ ,,	.
An Act for the relief of Mane Charlotte Arsenault Leonard.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Alphonse Christen.^t for the rei;ef Qf Edmund Lionel
H An Act for the relief of Gladys Elsie Lariviere Doyle.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ernestine Anne
Lothrop MacNaughton.
An Act for the relief of Irving Vengroff.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Robert	MalcolmDickenson.	„	, ,
An Act for the relief of Gwendolyn Edith
^An^Aet for the relief of Bernice Mae Skidmore Weale.	, „	„ _	. ,.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	George	ChristieHenderson.	. TAn	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mane	Lauretta
Eliennette (Rita) Yallerand Barraclough
An Act for the relief of William Thomas Bennett.	. _ _ _ _r . . -p..,.
An Act for the relief of Edna Marjorie Pitts
Wellington.	„ „ _	. .	T i n
An Act for the relief of Josephine Isabelle Nicholls Broglie Geoffrion.	, n ,
An Act for the relief of Rose Hannah Col-beck Grant.	„ , „	. __
An Act for the relief of Marie-Jeanne-Augusta Clement Lajeunesse.
An Act for the relief of Jeanne D Arc Guil-mette Henchey.	„	_	.An	Act	for	the relief of James	ArthurAn	Act	for	the relief of Charles	Howard
Alexander.
' An Act for the relief of Alfred Wade.
An Act for the relief of Inga Mary Frances Hitching.	,	* _	,,An	Act	for	the relief of Harold	Clayton
Webb Clout.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Thorburn Rice Colby.	. , „	. ^ ,	, , ..
An Act for the relief of Fama Pustopedskai.tes Sobolevicius otherwise known as Fanny Pus-topedsky Sobolevicius.
An Act for the relief of Frances Mary Fisk Irwin.	. .
An Act for the relief of Lilias Clark Watt J ames
An Act for the relief of Michael Gibson.
An Act for the relief of Azarie Trottier.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Sharp Hamelin.	,
An Act for the relief of Lucille Aimee Cadieux La combe.	,
An Act for the relief of Mary Wetstein
An Act for the relief of Brandla Lylberberg Guz. otherwise known as Bertha Silverberg
An Act for the relief of Natalie Kathleen Fearon Kirouac.
An Aot for the relief of Anita Spinner Starr. An Act for the relief of Fay Podolne Litwin. 
An Act for the relief of Gregoire (Hryhory) flyss, otherwise known as Harry Hys.
An Act for the relief of James Lamb Runci-
An Act for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Lionel Anecie St. Denis.	_	. „	„ ,,,
An Act for the relief of Emily Kathleen Mennie Thissen.	.
An Act for the relief of Robert Frederick Ring.	,	„
An Act for the relief of Walter Vernon Lewis.
An Act for the relief of Leonard Ferdman Raymond.	.
An Act for the relief of Mildred Cohen Share.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Elizabeth Clarke Gagnon.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Fern Hobbs Burns.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Euclide Beau-
An Act for the relief of Mary Rose Ellement Boulet.	_
An Act for the relief of Jean Stewart Lavery Martin.
An Act for the relief of Catherine Edith Thompson Williamson.
An Act for the relief of Joseph McCafferv.
An Act for the relief of Marian Pearl Dun-
An Act for the relief of Dollard Charest.
An Act for the relief of Kerttn Helvi Helen Fascio.
Mi Act for the relief of Anne Shacket Payne.
An Act for the relief of Gaston Marcel Chap-delaine.	.	„	.
An Act for the relief of Ross David Chartier.
An Act for the relief of John Boosamra.
An Act for the relief of Dawz Sims.
An Act respecting the Canadian Indemnity Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Fire Insurance Company.
An Act relating to the Development and Control of Atomic Energy.
An Act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
An Act to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
An Act respecting an income tax agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed at London, in England, on the fifth day of June, 1946.
An Act respecting a succession duty agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed at London, in England, on the fifty day of June, 1946.
An Act to amend the National Housing Act,
1944.	.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act' to amend the Veterans' Land Act, 1942.
An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944.
An Act to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. (university grant)
An Act to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.	,
An Act respecting civilian war pensions and allowances.
An Act to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
An Act to amend the Immigration Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.

Governor General's Speech
An Act to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
An Act respecting allowances for war veterans and dependents.
An Act respecting veterans of forces allied with Canada.
An Act respecting benefits to certain persons who -were recruited in Canada by United Kingdom authorities for special duties in war areas.
An Act respecting compensation for merchant seamen.
An Act respecting benefits to fire fighters who served in the United Kingdom.
An Act respecting benefits to certain supervisors in the auxiliary services.
An Act to provide for the reinstatement in civd employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces and other designated classes of persons.
An Act respecting war crimes.
An Act respecting the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Excise Act, 1934. tion'Vct'* t0 amend the Combines Investiga-
.	respecting loans to veterans to assist
in their establishment in business or professionally.
An Act respecting the Army and Navy Veterans m Canada.
An Act respecting Workers Benevolent Association of Canada.
An Act respecting judges of dominion and provincial Courts.
An Act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Barraute to Kiask Falls on the Bell river, m the province of Quebec.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1946, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
An Act to amend the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency or non-residents.
. yT-,to establish the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
An Act to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act,
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the Deputy Governor General doth bills.
Honourable the assent to these
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Honourable the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the commons, I present to rour Honour the following bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the. public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1947.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour s assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Honourable the Deputy Governor General did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.
[Stage Direction]
After which the Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the second session of the twentieth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate,
Members of the House of Commons:
A year has passed since hostilities ceased with the surrender of Japan. The world is but slowly emerging from the turmoil and ravages ot war. lhe domestic problems of individual nations have become inseparably linked with the problems of all nations.
Of international problems, the world shortage ot food has caused the greatest immediate concern. It is a source of gratification to the people ot Canada to know that our country has provided over one-fifth of the supply of food to relieve the greatest famine in human History. The government has continued to give P™itlCn expression to the wholehearted desire ol the Canadian people to relieve human suffer-qmlitjv tori*'r'')ul't' 1° international tran-
My ministers are continuing their efforts to restore and expand peace-time markets for the surplus production of our country. In the period of transition, exports to our war-time allies have been financed in part by credits voted by parliament. In accordance with this policy you have approved a financial agreement with the United Kingdom and made a further amendment to the Export Credit Insurance Act
A bountiful crop, which will help in meeting tile demand for food, now seems assured. An agreement has been made with the United Kingdom for the marketing of our wheat. The wheat agreement, with agreements for the marketing of other foodstuffs already in opera-turn, will greatly assist the government in its policy ox maintaining stable prices for agricultural products.	6
The demand, both at home and abroad, for Canadian manufactures has never been greater Production at a hkjh level is required both to meet this demand and to check inflationary pressure on prices.
The war-time battle against inflation has been continued with substantial success through the period ot transition. Despite gradual measures of decontrol, and a shift to a selective price ceiling, the rise of prices has been held well
[Stage Direction]
Governor General's Speech
in check. To this end, a most important step was the restoration of exchange parity with the United States dollar.
The conversion of our war industries to peacetime production has been achieved_ more smoothly and speedily and with less dislocation than might have been expected. Opportunities for employment have been maintained at a nigh level and the transfer to civilian occupations of displaced war workers and demobilized veterans is being accomplished swiftly and effectively.
In recent weeks essential production has been slowed down, and the dangers of inflation increased, by stoppages of work in certain key industries. My ministers endorse the view ot the standing committee on industrial relations that continued price control is only possible with a reasonable measure of wage control, the government is firmly convinced that the exeicise of moderation and restraint by all parties is essential to the satisfactory adjustment of labour disputes and the maintenance of the high leiel of production without which there cannot be ample opportunities for employment.
The repatriation of the armed forces is now virtually completed. It is anticipated that the wives and children of veterans will almost all have been brought to Canada by the close ol the present year. The demobilization of the wartime army, navy and air force is likewise practically 'accomplished. Foundations "ave been laid for the permanent peace-time deience forces.
A series of measures relating to war veterans has been enacted, with the object of making provision for the veterans, and for the dependents of the fallen, worthy of the service and sacrifice of Canada's armed forces.
In Canada, as in other countries, the housing shortage has grown more acute since the end of the war, despite the provision of a large supplj of new housing. In order to increase the efficiency of governmental action, the responsibility for housing has been largely concentrated in one minister of the crown The National Housing Act has been amended to expand facilities for the provision of housing.
The British North America Act has been amended by the United Kingdom parliament m accordance with the request contained in.a joint address adopted by both houses of parliament. The amendment will have the effect of maintaining more effectively the historic principle of representation by population, m the representation of the people in the House o Commons.	,	.„	,
You have enacted a measure to clarity and define Canadian citizenship and to make it the
distinctive status of the people of this country. The Immigration Act has also been amended to bring it into conformity with the revised definition of Canadian citizenship.
Other hills enacted include measures respecting the armed forces, the development and control of atomic energy, the National Research Council, the Department of External Affairs, the operation of crown companies, the Exchequer Court, the remuneration of judges, the investigation of combines, foreign exchange control, unemployment insurance, war crimes and the Federal District Commission.
The dominion-provincial conference resumed its meetings on April 25, and adjourned on May 3. The conference not haying reached unanimous agreement, proposals in respect to taxation were subsequently made which could be accepted by the provinces individually. These proposals have been accepted m principle by three provincial governments. I relimmary discussions are under way with certain other provinces. It is hoped that ultimately general agreement embracing all the provinces may be concluded.
Your approval has been given to the membership of Canada in the world health organization and in the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. Canada has continued to give the utmost support to the various agencies of the united nations.
Early in the session, the Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom to join in consultations on matters of common concern with the Prime Ministers or their representatives of other nations of the British commonwealth.
Canada is represented at the conference convoked to consider the treaties of peace with Italy and the axis satellites of southern and eastern Europe which opened its proceedings in Paris on July 29, by a delegation presided over, at the outset, by the Prime Minister.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for all essential services.	_
The further measures of relief from the wartime burden of taxation to be effected at_ the beginning of the new year will be cordially welcomed.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Divine Providence bless your deliberations and guide the nations in the establishment of a just and durable peace.
This concluded the second session of the twentieth parliament.