1946-05-07

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is unfortunately prevented from being in the house at the moment, I should like to read a statement which had been prepared for him in connection with a defence agreement with Newfoundland.
I wish to table copies of an agreement recently completed between Canada, the United Kingdom and Newfoundland concerning the disposition and post-war use of certain defence installations in Newfoundland.
Before the recent war the defence of Newfoundland was generally deemed the exclusive responsibility of the United Kingdom, but it maintained there no defence installations nor military establishments. At the outbreak of war the United Kingdom had neither trained personnel nor equipment to spare for Newfoundland's defence, and overtures were made to Canada shortly thereafter by the Newfoundland government for equipment and assistance in training a local establishment. At the time, however, little assistance could be rendered because of shortages of equipment here in Canada.
Following the military collapse of western Europe in 1940, a battalion of Canadian troops was promptly dispatched with the full approval of the Newfoundland and the United Kingdom governments to guard the Newfoundland airport at Gander, and this initial force was greatly enlarged within the following year by additional army, air and naval establishments. Arrangements were also made with Newfoundland for the coordination of Newfoundland home defence forces and Canadian army forces under an over-all Canadian command. Following the lease of bases in Newfoundland in 1941 to the United States for ninety-nine years, very considerable United States forces were also established in Newfoundland.
Shortly after the despatch of the first Canadian troops to Newfoundland, by agreement with Newfoundland Canada assumed responsibility for the operation and control of Gander, Gleneagles and Botwood air bases for the duration of the war, and later constructed Goose Bay air base in Labrador and
Torbay air base near St. John's. By agreement with the United Kingdom and Newfoundland governments, Canada also contracted on British admiralty account a naval base in St. John's. These various bases were available to the United States and United Kingdom throughout the war and were of inestimable importance in the conduct of the war. Without them the task of maintaining supplies to Britain, and of building up there a striking force, would have been immensely more difficult and victory in the desperate battle of the Atlantic would have been much longer delayed.
With the cessation of hostilities the continuance of a large armed establishment in Newfoundland and the maintenance there of most defence installations established during the war have fortunately become unnecessary. The armed services have accordingly been withdrawing their personnel as rapidly as possible consistent with the care of equipment and properties. By now virtually all personnel have been withdrawn except from Goose Bay air base to which Canada has been granted a lease for defence purposes for ninety-nine years.
The strategic importance of Newfoundland for the defence of Canada and North America generally and for the maintenance of communications across the North Atlantic has, however, been greatly enhanced by developments in aerial warfare and aerial navigation. The Newfoundland, United Kingdom and Canadian governments are therefore in agreement that some continuing arrangements for the defence of Newfoundland are essential. The agreement which I have tabled is designed to meet this need,, as well as to provide for the disposition of Newfoundland air bases which have been under Canadian control during the war. It provides that control of the air bases at Gander, Gleneagles and Botwood are to be handed back to Newfoundland as of March 31, in accordance wdth the original understanding between the two governments. In the event of an outbreak of hostilities involving Newfoundland and Canada, Canada may however take over control of Gander airport for the duration of hostilities. Canada will continue to operate Torbay airport as a civil airport for the Newfoundland-Canada service and may use it for military purposes as required. Article 5, which provides for continued cooperation in defence, reads in part: "the governments of Canada and Newfoundland, and as necessary the government of the United Kingdom, will consult with one another from time to time as occasion may require

[Stage Direction]
International Agreements
[Stage Direction]
with a view to coordinating defence requirements in Newfoundland." The same article also provides that Canadian and United Kingdom military aircraft may fly over Newfoundland and may use any airport in Newfoundland under Canadian or Newfoundland control.
Since Newfoundland is shortly to hold a constitutional convention with a view to making recommendations as to its future form of government, the present Commission of government in Newfoundland felt that it would be undesirable to make long-term commitments, a view with which the Canadian government concurred. The present agreement, therefore, is for three years certain, but is to remain in force thereafter subject to alteration by agreement or to termination on twelve months' notice by any of the three governments.
At this time when we are winding up our wartime activities in Newfoundland, I think it is fitting to express on behalf of the government our deep appreciation of the splendid cooperation which we have received from the Newfoundland government throughout the war and of the hospitality which the people of Newfoundland have constantly extended to the many Canadian service personnel stationed from time to time in their midst. One advantage of this partnership in the war effort is that mutual understanding between Canada and Newfoundland has undoubtedly been strengthened. Thousands of Canadians have come to know Newfoundlanders personally and to appreciate Newfoundland's problems. And Canada will not forget that a considerable number of her sons lie in Newfoundland graves. Personal ties are bound to strengthen the bonds of friendship through the years.
It is perhaps fitting also that I should take the occasion to pay tribute to Newfoundland's direct war effort. Over 5,200 men raised by voluntary enlistment were sent overseas to the United Kingdom forces, and over 1,700 were enlisted for home defence. I am pleased to say also that over 1,200 male residents of Newfoundland served in the various Canadian armed services, and about 525 women in the various Canadian women's services. In addition, Newfoundland advanced to the United Kingdom in interest free loans, about twelve and a half million dollars. The house, I feel sure, will agree that Newfoundland, though a relatively small country, made a really substantial contribution to the achievement of victory.
Mr. COLD WELL:: May I ask a supplementary question, in view of the importance of the agreement between Canada and New-

foundland? Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs send this agreement to the external affairs committee for study? This house should be apprised of the contents of the agreement; therefore it would be of service to have it studied by the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not exactly remember the terms of the reference to the committee on external affairs, but I would imagine they would be sufficiently broad to make available to the committee all papers tabled during this session which have to do with external affairs.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should think so.



PAN-AMERICAN DEFENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROGRAMME OF COLLABORATION AMONG AMERICAN COUNTRIES

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs the Minister of Justice has given us a statement with respect to defence establishments in Newfoundland. I am sure the house has listened with interest and, so far as we understand it I should think with approval, to the statement, but it raises another question I had intended to direct to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has indicated that he would answer it and perhaps I may be permitted to ask it at this time. It has to do with the question of collaboration in Pan-American defence.
Incidentally, if I may make an observation here, the statement with respect to defence establishments in Newfoundland raises the question of the political relationship of that island to Canada. The house would welcome a statement either by the Prime Minister or by some other member of the government as to whether there has been any discussion of a closer relationship between that island and Canada.
At the moment I wish to a.sk two related questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both arising out of a dispatch which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Evening Journal respecting a bill which President Truman has sent to both houses of congress. The tenor of the bill is indicated by the first paragraph, which reads as follows:
President Truman asked congress to-day to authorize a programme of military collaboration between this country and other American republics. Canada was included by the president in his plan.
The questions are: Did any conversations take place between the governments of Canada and the United States on the matter of PanAmerican defence prior to the president's mes-

Pan-American Defence
sage to congress, and has any action been agreed to by the government of Canada which in any way prescribes our present diplomatic freedom in dealing with the various South American republics?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The Secretary of State for External Affairs has prepared an answer to the question, which is as follows:
I should judge that the president's message to congress is in the nature of a request for legislation which would enable the United States government to provide technical and other assistance to the governments of other American states under arrangements for defence cooperation which might be concluded. As such, it is primarily domestic legislation, the passage of which must precede the conclusion of such arrangements.
The answers to the questions put by the leader of the opposition are in the negative. The terms of this legislation were not discussed with the Canadian government and no conversations have taken place between the two governments on Pan-American defence. Moreover, I can state definitely that no action has been agreed to by the Canadian government which in any way prescribes our present diplomatic freedom in dealing with the various other American republics.



BUILDING MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, notice of which I sent to him. Will the minister state what steps will be taken to assure small towns of a fair share of building materials?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Small towns are getting their share of building materials under equitable distribution methods or procedures administered by the wartime prices and trade board in the same manner as that in which all other supplies are distributed in Canada. Quotas are based on purchases during base period which is the year 1941. All distribution, whether to large or small towns, is on that basis.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon City put the following
questions to the Minister of Public Works;. but I was out of the house at the time. I should now like to reply. The questions were:
Is it the intention of the minister to evict, on May 31 some sixteen families from the London block in Saskatoon? If so, is the government prepared to take responsibility for finding shelter for these families at that time?
In 1945 the Department of Public Works took over two floors of that building for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Some months ago, because of the expansion of their activities, they requested more space in the same building. We gave notice of eviction some days ago to take effect on May 31. Since that notice was sent out I have received written complaints, addressed to me personally, from every tenant; therefore I have asked the officers of the department to reconsider the situation and try to find space elsewhere.



KURT MEYER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should perhaps preface my question by saying that I have not been able to give notice of it to the Minister of National Defence. There have been many rumours, semi-official press reports, and reports in the press which seemed almost official, in regard to the eventual disposition of General Kurt Meyer, who was brought to Canada last week. I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would consider making an official statement to the house in behalf of his department and the government so that we may know and the public may be informed as to exactly what is going on in connection with this man. I raise the question to-day because some veterans in my own constituency have been somewhat figitated over it, and they are anxious that someone in the house should raise the question in order that the government may have an opportunity of making a statement as soon as possible.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps I can answer the question now. The person in question, Brigade Fuehrer Ivurt Meyer, is confined in Dorchester penitentiary, as the house is aware from statements that have appeared in the press. The Department of National Defence no longer has anything to do with the matter of his custody, which is now the concern of the Department of Justice. He is incarcerated in Dorchester penitentiary under the same conditions that apply to anj other criminal; and whether he stays there or is moved to
Loan to United Kingdom

another penitentiary is a matter which I assume would be dealt with by the Department of Justice in exactly the same way as they would deal with the care and custody of any other prisoner.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is it true that the government will build him a mansion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.



LOAN TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 6, consideration in committee of bill No. 28, respecting the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom signed on the 6th day of March, 1946-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee last sat it was considering section 4.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this morning I did part of the work that should have been done by the Minister of Finance, the leader of the opposition, the leader of the C.C.F. group and the leader of the Social Credit group. For some time we have been discussing trade without having definite data about it. My information comes in the first place from Whitaker, a well known English publication, and in the second place from the official report of the Department of Trade and Commerce :for the year ended March 31, 1945. It has been said that the United Kingdom is our best customer. That is incorrect and untrue. According to Whitaker, 1944, the total trade of the United Kingdom and Canada in millions of dollars for 1938 was as follows:
(In millions of dollars)
Exports Imports Total United Kingdom . 2,090	3,813	5,903Canada	
889	678	1,567This means that the exports of the United Kingdom were two and a quarter times those of Canada, while the imports of the United Kingdom were five and two-thirds times those of Canada. The total trade of the United Kingdom, as I have said, was $5,903 million, while that of Canada was 81,567 million. It would be interesting to know the trade of Canada with the United Kingdom. I do not have that for the year 1939, but I have it for 1938, and there would be only a slight difference in 1939. In 1938 our paid exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $349 million, while our paid imports from the United Kingdom were $104 million. That is a total of $453 million, which was less than one-third of the total Canadian trade for that year. Those figures 	.
come from Whitaker. Now I turn to the official report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. In 1944 the total Canadian trade, as compared with that of 1939, was as follows:
(In millions of dollars)
Exports Imports Total
1944	
3,439	1,752	5,1911939	
924	751	1.675
These figures indicate a surplus difference of $2,'515 million as between the two years in regard to exports, and a surplus difference of $1,001 million in regard to imports, or a total surplus difference in 1944, as compared with 1939, of $3,516 million. In other words the surplus difference in our total trade in 1944 was more than twice that of 1939; and it is important to note also that during the war our total trade was nearly as great as the pre-war trade of the United Kingdom. The total trade of the United Kingdom in 1938 was $5,903 million, while our total trade in 1944 was $5,191 million. What is important? The important thing is to compare the 1944 Canadian-United Kingdom trade with that of 1939, and to show the result in millions of dollars. The following table will give that information:
1944 Canadian United Kingdom trade compared with lh39 (in $ million)
Unpaid exports Paid imports Total
1944 ...	1,235	110	1,3451939 . ..	328 (normal) 114	442
plus 907 minus 4 plus 903
Total Canadian "Exports" to United Kingdom (in $ million)
1939	 328
1941		 G58
1942		 741
1943		 i,032
1944		 1,235

I,hold in my hand the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which is available to every hon. member. This report states that during those five years only once-in 1941-did we export more to the United Kingdom than we did to the United States. Besides that, our exports to the United States in each year were greater than those to Great Britain.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Was that 1939 to 1944?


Jean-François Pouliot: In the years 1939, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. In the same years our imports from the United States were considerably larger than those from the United Kingdom. These are the figures showing our imports from those two countries:

Loan to United Kingdom
Imports from Imports from Year	United States United Kingdom
1939	
$ 496,898	$114,0071941	
1,004,498	219,4-191942	
1,304,680	161,1131943	
1,423.672	134,9651944	
1,474.286	110,599
There is a very large margin in connection with imports, much larger than applies to exports, because our exports, to the United States were paid while those to the United Kingdom were financed. That is altogether different. I say they were unpaid from 1942 to the present time, because the loans sometimes were gifts, or amounted to that. It is unbelievable that a small nation, with one-fourth the population of the United Kingdom, and constituting only a small fraction of the British empire, including the United Kingdom and all the other British possessions, should finance the whole trade of the sterling area.
I have the utmost sympathy for the minister, because others made commitments upon which he had to act. This matter is very deep, and is of considerable importance. However, on March 18, 1942, the minister said that the whole of the sterling area's deficit had been financed by Ottawa out of its own resources. Hon. members who were not in the house at the time may not have read this, but it is of tremendous importance. On that occasion the minister said, in the first, instance in connection with financing by Canada of the sterling area's net defiicit of $1,770 million:
This deficit has been financed in three ways. In increasing order of importance they are: gold payments from the United Kingdom to Canada; redemption of purchase, mainly in advance of maturity of Canadian security obligations held in the United Kingdom; and the accumulation of sterling balances held by the foreign exchange control board on deposit in London.
He said that the whole of the sterling area deficit had been financed by Ottawa, out of its own resources^ Then he continued:
Gold payments by the United Kingdom have amounted to $250 million over this whole period. As the house is aware, the last payment was received in December, 1940, and since that time the whole of the sterling area deficit has been financed by Canada out of its own resources.
International accounts, naturally.
Over the period as a whole gold payments have covered less than 15 per cent of the sterling area deficit in Canada.
Not only have gold payments by the United Kingdom been kept to relatively modest proportions, but every ounce of gold we obtained from the United Kingdom was promptly converted into United States funds and used-
For Canada? No.
-to pay for United States goods needed to complete war orders for the United Kingdom.
We did not keep the money that we received. We passed it over to the United States, to credit the account of Great Britain. Then he continued:
Exact statistics are not available, but there can be no doubt whatever that the amounts we have paid out in United States exchange in connection with British war orders in Canada are very greatly in excess of the amount of hard currency settlement received from the United Kingdom.
That is what was said on that occasion by the Minister of Finance. It was not said by any leader of an opposition group or by any private member who had been accused by the ultra-imperialist press of being isolationist; it was the Minister of Finance himself who declared that the gold payments by the United Kingdom had covered less than fifteen per cent of the sterling area deficit in Canada and commented that they had been kept to relatively modest proportions. The minister said that since December, 1940, we have taken the whole burden on our shoulders. The minister's words were:
Until December, 1949, the United Kingdom shared with us the burden of providing the necessary hard currency. Since then we have taken the whole burden on our own shoulders. The burden has not been a light one . . .
I admit it. I am sorry for the minister. I know he is honest and I know he is in a very difficult position. If he were not honest I should be speaking to him in a very different manner. As Minister of Finance he must take care of the commitments that have been made by others, and I shall come to that in a moment. I have another reason for respecting the minister. It is because he is a hard worker, and I think everyone will agree with that statement.
The date, December, 1940, is of the utmost importance. It was in that month, first, that Canada received the last gold payment from the United States; second, that the United Kingdom discontinued to share with us the burden of providing the necessary hard currency, and, third, that we took the whole burden on our shoulders. This having been said, the minister then went on to say that the burden had not been a light one. The burden of financing the whole sterling area could not have been a light one. He made other statements which are all included in a book I wrote but never had published. I had intended to have it published in Toronto, and I thought it would be a good idea to read an advance
Loan to United Kingdom

copy to my colleagues. By the way, I had the honour of having it described a long time ago as the great Canadian book of the year.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It will be a good book. When it comes out we shall all want copies.


Jean-François Pouliot: There will be a word of praise in it for the support I received from my hon. friend in haying the public accounts improved. I thank the minister for meeting the request made by the hon. member, the hon. member for Broadview, and myself. Once again we were doing the work of the leader of the opposition of the time, of the leader of the Social Credit group and of the leader of the C.C.F. group. We were trying to reform the public accounts, and after we had made our representations the minister agreed to do it. I quote'again from the minister's remarks:
Our United States dollar problem and our need of foreign exchange control are in part a direct consequence of our assistance to Great Britain.
Then a most unusual thing occurred. The Minister of Finance went so far as to express deep concern about the result of the financial policies he had been sponsoring. He said:
I warned the house in introducing the budget last April-	*
1940.
*-that the need for United States exchange conservation had not passed; and lest any one should think that the Hyde Park agreement has solved our United States dollar exchange problem, 1 should like to say that our official reserves of gold and United States dollars fell by $142,000,000, United States dollars, in 1941. Moreover, although the outlook is far from clear, it must be recognized that, failing remedial action, we appear to be faced with another sizable loss of reserves this year. Our United States dollar position is. therefore, still a major cause of concern. I stress this point because our United States dollar problem and our need of foreign exchange control are in part a direct consequence of our assistance to Great Britain.
At that point the minister made this remark:
When we are proposing to open a new chapter in our financial relations, the record regarding the past should be made quite clear.
I agree with that. The new chapter in our financial relations with Great Britain was not opened on March 18, 1942, when the minister made that statement on the sterling area financing scheme; it dated back to fifteen months before; it dated back to December, 1940, when Great Britain made its last gold payment and when we took on our own shoulders the whole burden of financing the sterling area deficit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We could not have got any more gold from Great Britain.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, but that was the last time we received gold from Great Britain. Instead of keeping it here for our trade we sent it to the United States for the benefit of Great Britain, as the minister said on March 18, 1942. The Minister of Finance did not try to escape any responsibility, but he did not make the record regarding the past clear enough.
On November 7, 1940, the late Arthur B. Purvis was appointed by the United Kingdom to the new war purchasing commission. A dispatch to that effect appeared in the Montreal Gazette of November 8, 1939, but I shall not read it. This board replaced the previous board. The defence purchasing board was set up under the Minister of Finance in July, 1939, a short time before Mr. Dunning's resignation and departure for London. It was under his successor in that capacity, Colonel Ralston, when it was replaced by the war supply board with "extraordinary powers, under the War Measures Act, to mobilize and regulate industry, production and other resources in Canada for a concentrated war effort" and when Mr. Purvis was appointed to it. The news appeared in the press more than eight months before the Prime Minister introduced the Mobilization Act in June, 1940.
On November 15, 1940, Colonel Ralston left for London. The minister of national defence had died in June. At the time the minister of national defence was also acting minister of finance. I was the only member of parliament to protest against this. He was more a minister of international finance than a minister of national defence, because the brass hats ruled the department when he was there.
On June 11, Colonel Ralston recited to the house the details of what he said was his most useful e veiling with the late Arthur B. Purvis. Colonel Ralston said:
Mr. Purvis was good enough to give me, in the way he can give it quickly, concisely and comprehensively the fullest statement possible with regard to production in United States and with regard to the needs of Britain with regard to munitions and supplies. I do not know when I spent an evening which was more useful in connection with the work that I was doing, and it gave me an idea of how we could integrate our production with that of the United States and our needs with the needs of Britain.
I emphasize those last words:
It gave me an idea of how we could integrate our production with that of the United States and our needs with the needs of Britain.
Colonel Ralston added that he kept that information for his colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Neither of them said any more to the house about Purvis' statement. "The record regarding the past,"

Loan to United Kingdom
read in the house by the Minister of Finance March 18, 1942, makes it clear beyond doubt that the Purvis "statement" to Colonel Ralston was the suggestion to finance the whole of the sterling area deficit by Ottawa out of its own resources-and we may draw the conclusion that it was because it was so promptly accepted by Colonel Ralston that Mr. Ilsley expressed so much concern about it, and went so far as to state that-
-our United States dollar problem and our need of foreign exchange control are in part-
Note the words:
*-are in part a direct consequence of our financial assistance to Great Britain.
He specified that "we have taken the whole burden on our own shoulders" from December 1940, 'the time when Colonel Ralston spent his most useful evening with Mr. Purvis.
I sympathize with the Minister of Finance because he was responsible for the whole product of that nefarious triumvirate of Purvis, Dunning and Ralston, and I was the only member of parliament to protest against it. And now one of Ralston's chums is acting as political adviser to the leader of the opposition and one of his former law partners is head of the National Liberal Association. It reminds me of an old serial, "The Clutching Hand" which appeared on the screen a long time ago, in which at the end of every episode a hand seemed to reach out to clutch everyone in the audience-just like the octopus of international finance.
I understand that the main argument of the Minister of Finance in favour of this loan is that it is a preparation for the coming international trade conference to be held this summer. Is not that so?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I would say that that was not the main argument in favour of the loan. The lending plans of the United States and Canada and the Bretton Woods arrangements, and the trade arrangements perhaps, are all part of a great plan to extend trade throughout the world. But I would not say that the loan to Britain can mainly be defended on the ground that it is a preparation for the international trade conference.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question, but first I will refer to a statement made in the debate yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary West, who said at page 1239 of Hansard:
Why all this fuss now about some United States citizens buying Canadian Pacific shares? Is it suggested that we should put restrictions on them, that they must be held in Canada?
Just prior to that, I had been asking questions regarding the sale of Canadian Pacific securities in the United States, and I referred
to them simply because I had the report at hand; for I feel exactly the same way about all Canadian securities, not merely Canadian Pacific. I think it is definitely detrimental to the welfare of this country to sell Canadian securities outside of Canada, because it means the expansion of our external debt. Surely nobody would argue that the expansion of our external debt would be a good thing for this country. The hon. member for Calgary West said that in the olden days Canadian Pacific shares were sold abroad. That is true, but the situation then was entirely different. We had to sell Canadian securities abroad then to get the capital required to develop this country because we had not the machines we have to-day. But to-day no one would suggest that Canada is not able to finance the development of its own resources without borrowing externally.
If anybody has any doubt on that point, recall what happened in the war. We financed our war effort to the extent of five billion dollars without borrowing one cent externally, and if we could finance our war effort to the extent of five billion dollars without selling Canadian securities abroad, would anybody suggest that it is necessary now to obtain external capital in order to bring about every expansion in this country that is desirable? The undoubted answer is that it is detrimental to the welfare of this country to sell Canadian securities abroad, whether Canadian Pacific or any other securities, public or private.
I wish to refer to a question put by the hon. member for Springfield at page 1241 of Hansard. He asked the Minister of Finance:
Is the financing done through the Bank of Canada or by borrowing from the private banks?
The Minister of Finance answered:
The amounts are not segregated. They are just like any other money which the dominion obtains by taxation or by borrowing from the public or by borrowing from the chartered banks and perhaps to some extent, from the Bank of Canada, but that latter is very limited.
Then the member for Rosetown-Biggar asked:
Will it necessitate borrowing the savings deposits standing to the credit of the people of Canada in order to pay for the goods that flow to England so that the people who make them here can be paid for them in Canadian currency?
And the Minister of Finance replied: yes. But over the page he had stated that the money was obtained by the dominion by taxation or by borrowing from the public or by borrowing from the chartered banks and perhaps to some extent the Bank of Canada. So evidently when he gave that answer to the
Loan to United Kingdom

member for Rosetown-Biggar he did not mean to say that we were going to finance entirely by public issues.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Victor Quelch: But there is a danger that some people may think that the minister's answer means that the people's deposits will be borrowed by borrowing them from the banks. The minister will agree that it does not mean that, because when you borrow the people's savings you cannot borrow them from the banks. When you borrow from the banks you have an expansion of credit. The banks cannot lend their deposits.
I take it that we shall finance this loan to Britain largely by taxation and secondly by another victory loan, by whatever name it may be called, and there may be a certain amount of borrowing from the chartered banks. I take it that on borrowings from the people the rate will again be three per cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not likely. The average 'ate is less than three per cent at present.


Victor Quelch: Not from the people. I know that we are borrowing from the chartered banks for as low a rate as -78 per cent, less than one per cent, and when you average that rate with three per cent you get of course a lower rate than three per cent. But we are not borrowing from the people at a lower rate than three per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Long-term bonds are at a premium. It would be possible to borrow long-term money at considerably less than three per cent.	/


Victor Quelch: On long-term public issues?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes; and the shorter
ihe term the lower the rate.


Victor Quelch: From the people of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Victor Quelch: Does the minister mean from the insurance companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: What I mean is this. It would be possible now to borrow from the public of Canada, on long term, bonds at substantially less than three per cent. The price which victory bonds have reached shows that.


Victor Quelch: I am glad to hear that, because it helps me to bring out the point I wish to make. I hope that the next victory loan will be sold at one and a half or two per cent. Under the agreement with Britain we are proposing to make a loan without any interest until the year 1951. I understand

Britain will not pay interest until 1951 and after that at the rate of two per cent. It is possible that we may float a victory loan at two per cent, so that our only loss would be on the first five years up to 1951. Now I have received a number of letters from people in my constituency saying:	"Why is it that
we can lend to anybody, apparently, except Canadians, money at two per cent, or even money for a period of five years without interest at all, when we have to charge our own people a rate of three or four per cent?" I appreciate the reason given by the minister. He said this loan to England was based on ability to pay. We had to reduce the rate of interest to a level that would make it possible for England to repay the loan. I have nothing to criticize in that but if, in order to make certain goods available to people externally, we have to reduce the rate of interest so that those people can repay the loan we make, should not exactly the same principle apply to Canadians in this country? I would say it should apply to civilians, but certainly it should apply to the soldiers who fought the wTar. Yet what do we find at the present time? In respect of the Veterans Land Act we charge the soldiers three and a half per cent interest. Many applications by soldiers who wish to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act 'are being turned down on the ground that these veterans will not be able to pay off their loans at the rate of three and a half per cent interest. But if we can say to the British people, "You cannot meet your obligation at three or four per cent and so we will make an agreement with you whereby you can meet it", why can we not do the same thing with our soldiers? If they cannot repay their loan in ten or twenty years at a rate of three and a half per cent, why do we not change the agreement and finance it in such a way that the soldiers will be able to repay their loans? Instead of saying, "You cannot go under the Veterans Land Act because you will be unable to meet the financial conditions," let us adjust the conditions so as to enable the soldiers to meet them. Instead of imposing the present conditions, let us meet the soldiers and discuss the matter with them in order to find out at what rate of interest it would be possible for these boys to buy land and pay off their loans. We might give them the same kind of agreement that we are making with Britain. We might say to them, "We will not charge you any interest until 1951, so that you may have a chance to get on your feet, and from then on we will charge you two and a half per cent and later perhaps three per cent."

Loan to United Kingdom
There is an old saying that charity begins at home. I cannot see why we are more willing to give a decent agreement to people outside Canada than to our own people.
Mr. ILSLEY! Let me answer that at once. If the rate of interest charged on loans to Canadian citizens, whether they be returned soldiers or others, were made at a loss to the Canadian treasury, it would be an additional subsidy or veterans benefit as the case might be. The taxpayers would be assuming just that much greater burden for the benefit of that class of the community who might receive their money at less than market rates of interest.


Victor Quelch: Or an expansion of the
internal debt.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. But you cannot have an indefinite expansion of internal debt.


Victor Quelch: Then I would ask this question


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me finish, please. I have to connect the two thoughts together. In the case of the loan to Great Britain, the extent to which the taxpayer contributes there is a contribution to the people of the dominion of Canada to give them markets, and if you did the same thing over again domestically you would be giving the people of Canada a double benefit. It just depends on how high you want to have your taxes go, or how high you want the internal debt to go. The hon. gentleman perhaps holds the theory that this loan to Great Britain is not designed primarily for the benefit of the Canadian people.


Victor Quelch: Hear, hear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I have dealt with that position. I believe the hon. gentleman took that position, and so did one other member of his group, the member for Maeleod (Mr. Hansell). But that position was not shared by the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) or by myself, and I do not think it is shared by the membership of the house as a whole. The object of this loan is to get Great Britain into the position where she can be a dependable, a steady and an expanding market for Canadian goods, and in that way confer benefits upon the constituents of the hon. gentleman, whether they be civilians or veterans. And that is certainly no argument for extending our gratuity policy or our reestablishment credit policy. There may be other reasons for extending it, but that is not a reason for doing so. It would be conferring a double benefit instead of a single benefit upon the constituents of the hon. gentleman and the citizens of Canada as a whole.
Before I sit down I wish to deal with one minor point raised by the hon. gentleman, though perhaps I should not take the time of the committee in discussing it. He deplored the fact that our securities are sold abroad, on the ground that that increases the external indebtedness of Canada or of the people of Canada. That is so. It increases the liability of Canadians to other countries. But as against that liability there is a corresponding asset, that asset being the currency of the foreign country, the American currency which we hold; and to the extent that our securities are sold in volume our reserves of American currency are built up. But the loss in the transaction is not an absolute loss; that is a loss to the extent of the additional liabilities incurred by Canadians. The loss is merely of interest, as I explained to the member for Calgary West yesterday. Dividends and interest on securities that are sold abroad are all a charge upon the productive capacity of the Dominion of Canada, while the currency we get for these cannot be employed in such a way as to earn the equivalent amount of interest. That is the loss, and the only loss, as far as loans are concerned.	-


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: But industry operates and pays wages here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. HACKETT:: It is a charge on
production.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The interest we pay abroad?


John Thomas Hackett: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: We never would have got started if it had not been for external sources of money at that time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Undoubtedly that is true of the past, whatever may be th.e situation in the future. I wish to deal briefly with two points while I have the floor. The origin of our mutual aid policy is not as stated by the hon. member for Temiscouata. It did not have its origin in any conversations between Colonel Ralston and Mr. Purvis. It was a policy worked out by the government of Canada for which I was primarily responsible and in which responsibility my colleagues shared. The other point made by my hon. friend was that my statement regarding the United Kingdom being our best customer is incorrect. It is borne out by the figures of normal years. My hon. friend took war years, which reflect an abnormal situation. But if one goes back to the years before the war one will find that the exports to the United Kingdom nearly every year were higher than
Loan to United Kingdom

the exports to the United States. For instance in 1939 the figures were slightly in favour of the United States, $336 millions as against $331 millions to the United Kingdom. In 1938 the exports to the United Kingdom were higher, $334 millions as against $261 millions to the United States. In 1937 they were $384 millions to the United Kingdom as against 83S1 millions to the United States. In 1936 they were $356 millions to the United Kingdom as against $348 millions to the United States. In 1933-I am not skipping anything here; these are the only ones given-they were $211 millions to the United Kingdom as against $168 millions to the United States.
There are years when our exports to the United States are greater than our exports to the United Kingdom; but there are many more years when our exports to the United ' Kingdom are greater than to the United States. Our exports of agricultural surpluses and other surpluses of natural products are greater to the United Kingdom by a very large margin than are our exports to the United States.


Mr. CASE:: What about the trade balances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The balance, of course, is different in the two cases. There is a surplus of exports to Great Britain over imports from Great Britain, and a surplus of imports from the United States over exports to the United States.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: More frequently we have a favourable balance of trade with the United Kingdom than with the United States.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Victor Quelch: The minister said that when we sell securities to the United States we obtain United States currency in exchange. That is true. If that United States exchange were used for the purpose of liquidating debt to the United States I would have no objection. I do not think the minister can argue that that is true. If it is, it does not really alter the situation except to the extent that the rate of interest we pay on the securities we sell may be higher than the rate of interest we pay to the United States at present.
If the rate of interest is less, then there is a slight advantage. If the rate of interest is higher, then we are losing. I think it would be true to say that the rate of interest would be higher on Canadian Pacific sales than we are paying at the present time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We do not gain currently, but the only point I was trying to make was that from the way the hon. gentleman was presenting it I thought he really did have a doubt in his own mind about it-there was one in my mind for a time. That is why I

suspected there was one in his. It is thought that you are simply incurring that much additional liability when you sell securities abroad without having anything to show for it, but you have a corresponding asset for every dollar's worth.


Victor Quelch: I did not think that for one minute. Before the war we used to hear certain suggestions, and we are going to hear them again. We have heard it from some people to our right. They say that we shall have to bring about favourable conditions in this country to encourage foreign capital. Hon. members have heard that statement time and time again. They have seen it in the Financial Post; they have seen it in practically every financial paper in this country. We do not need a dollar of foreign capital. I quite agree that in the early days we did need it. At that time we did not have the capital to develop our own resources. We had to sell securities abroad to get capital to develop the country, but we do not need it any more. We are fully able to finance the optimum development of the resources of Canada without any foreign capital. If anybody has any doubt about it, all he has to do is to look at what we did during the war. We had a $5 billion war effort without borrowing a dollar abroad.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There may be an advantage in getting money abroad. If venture capital is not available in your own country and you can get somebody outside of the country to take the risk which you cannot get the people in the country to take, it should be an advantage.


Victor Quelch: The minister means to say we should go after some suckers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not mean that at all. Everybody who ventures his capital is not a sucker. Not everybody who takes a big risk is a sucker, by any means. Venture capital is valuable stuff for a country and sometimes it is pretty hard to find. If you can find people outside who will bring it forth, you are doing quite a lot for the country.


Victor Quelch: I recall discussing a bill last year regarding the sale of gold mining stock to the United States. Apparently there was a lot of wildcatting going on. In fact some promoters in this country were looking for suckers in the United States to buy shares in gold mines which were apparently just holes in the ground. If we have any venture capital coming into this country from abroad we shall pay a good price for it. Any time venture capital comes in from abroad it is in the expectancy of making a high profit.

Loan to United Kingdom
I want to turn to the other argument, namely, that it pays us to make this loan to Britain in order to keep her in good standing so that she will be able to buy our exports in the future. I will admit that indirectly it is to the advantage of Canada to keep Great Britain in a position to help play her part among the great nations of the world. Let me point out that exactly the same argument applies to our own people. If it is to our advantage to make these goods available to England so that she can make a worth-while contribution in the future and take our goods, surely it must be of just as great an advantage to bring about the proper reestablishment of our own soldiers, so that they can become worth-while citizens and contribute to the welfare of this country. Therefore the same argument applies to our own people as to Great Britain in that regard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The difficulty is that we have a great surplus for export. You could never hope to get that market for these exports among your own people.


Victor Quelch: While we may have a surplus of certain commodities, we have a great scarcity of others in the country.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: No.


Victor Quelch: We have scarcity of a great many, things. We are even being asked to eat less bread, to cut down by two slices on every loaf to leave enough to go round. People are being asked to conserve in many lines. There would be a strong demand in this country for goods if they were available. I am sure that every hon. member in this house is finding it difficult to buy certain commodities at the moment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true of some commodities because the export demands are great at the present time; but in normal times it is not within any foreseeable future that we shall have a population that will consume all the wheat we produce here, or nickel, or bacon, or newsprint,' or copper, or asbestos that we produce here. There is a long list of commodities produced which would have to be cruelly curtailed if we were to rely upon the home market in Canada. It would mean a dislocation of our whole economy and a lower standard of living, because we would be trying to turn our people into different kinds of producers under more expensive and uneconomic conditions and circumstances. Therefore it is of vital and primary interest to pursue a policy that will not make it necessary for the greatest importing nation in the world, a great importer from Canada, to pursue a restrictive policy and a policy of economic nationalism and self-sufficiency to the complete confusion and dislocation of our whole economy. That is the reason that it is of vital importance here.


Victor Quelch: I agree with the minister that an export market is very important, and the minister could very easily reassure me and other hon. members if he would guarantee that in the future, whilst we now have a great interest in the export market, we are nevertheless going to look upon it as our major obligation to see that the home market is developed to its full extent. Will the minister guarantee that in the future all the people of Canada will be able to buy all the commodities that we produce, export the surpluses and bring back other goods in exchange? If the minister could do that we would be satisfied. The minister knows very well that that has not been the policy of Canada in the past.
During the depression years, from 1935 to 1939, we had on the average a favourable balance of trade of 8219 millions a year, in spite of the fact that one million people were on relief, in spite of the fact that there would have been a strong demand for the imports that could have been brought back to this country in return for the 8219 millions of foreign exchange. The minister may say that we had a foreign debt, but at the same time we were only maintaining production at about fifty per cent of our capacity. We could have expanded that production to the full extent, met our foreign obligations and increased the standard of living of our people by several hundred million dollars. Now if the minister is going to guarantee that in future that will not be the policy of this country, that in future we are going to maintain and develop the resources of this country and see that the people get the amount of consumer goods they desire before any are shipped abroad to build up foreign investments-if the minister will give that assurance to the committee we shall be much easier in our minds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The whole purpose of the policy is to maintain as high a standard of living for the people as possible.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think most of this discussion, Mr. Chairman, is purely academic. I do not believe the minister is in a position to give an undertaking that in future the resources of this country will be developed and used to the greatest possible extent for the benefit of the Canadian people; but I believe the people of this country as a whole are in a position to put a government in power that will do that very thing.
My view of the loan is that it helps a world expansionist programme, and for that reason I believe it should be supported. We
Loan to United Kingdom

are still in an international crisis. If we were to adopt an isolationist policy and try to make ourselves self-sufficient within this country, in a way I believe we could assure ourselves a basic standard of living; but I do not think that for a long time we could assure ourselves of as high a standard of living as we can if we are prepared now to accept a lower standard in order to build up the economy of other countries which are in a less fortunate position. As I said in my few remarks the other evening, from my point of view the whole purpose of this loan is to help Great Britain, which is in such a strategic position at the present time if only she is strong enough to assert that position, to build up her economy; and I am satisfied that in future it will help us in this country also to attain a higher standard of living. I see no reason in the world why we,should prolong this debate unles some of us are to take the position that we intend to oppose this loan to the very limit. Well, the quickest way to do that is to let the bill come to a division. Those who are against it can oppose it; those who are in favour of it can support it, and then let it go on its merits. We are not serving any useful purpose by all this debate, and in saying this I am not reflecting at all upon the ability of the hon. member for Temiscouata to deal very capably with these matters. But I say we are not serving any useful purpose by continuing this discussion beyond the stage it has now reached.


Jean-François Pouliot: My purpose is not at all to delay the adoption of the measure but to inform the house and even inform the minister. The Minister of Finance has said the United Kingdom is our best customer. I hold in my hand a booklet written by Sir Norman Angell and distributed by the United Kingdom information service some years ago. The question is asked, "From whom does the empire buy?" In reply it is stated that in 1938 or 1938-39 Canada bought 17-5 per cent from the United Kingdom and 82-5 per cent from the rest of the world. The next question asked is, "To whom does the empire sell?" The answer is that in 1938 or 1938-39 Canada sold 39-1 per cent to the United Kingdom and 60-9 per cent to the rest of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: To different countries.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely, to different
countries; but now the United Kingdom is described as the only market for Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; by the minister; and I will tell the hon. member for Acadia why I say that. The hon, gentleman spoke

only of our trade with the United Kingdom, and the minister spoke of economic nationalism. I know the idea in the mind of the hon. member for Acadia.


Victor Quelch: If the hon. gentleman does not mind my interrupting, the only reason I referred to Great Britain is that this loan is to Great Britain. If the loan had been to some other country I would have mentioned that country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. I would do the same. I am not complaining about the hon. member for Acadia; at present I am in agreement with him, but the hon. member referred to our trade with the United Kingdom and the minister shouted "economic nationalism," just as though there were only one road'for our goods to travel, that is, the Atlantic ocean east to London. I do not blame the hon. gentleman. I blame the minister, and I blame him for the confusion he displayed in presenting the measure. It took me thirteen or fifteen hours to try to undertsand something in his speech of April 11. Everything was mixed up. Was it deliberate or not? I don't know. I do not like to speak like that, but I was offended when the minister spoke of economic nationalism. We believe Canada is a great country; and it is not a great country only in the mouth of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. It is a great country in fact. The answers the minister gave me the other day were answers to play with. It was not serious. For instance, I asked about the loan to the Netherlands East Indies, amounting to v $15,000,000, which was later promised to be increased to $$0,000,000. Was it promised to Malcolm MacDonald in order to give him an opportunity to be appointed governor general of that part of the world? We are lending $50,000,000 to a country with which we will have no trade whatever. Last year I denounced Malcolm MacDonald at the same time that I denounced Lord Halifax and I give Mr. Attlee credit for having removed both of them from America.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is not governor general of the Netherlands East Indies.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is governor general of Malaya or somewhere out there, and the Sarawak white district is under his jurisdiction now. He is to be far away, and I am glad of it; it is a good thing for Canada that he is far away. By the way, with whom did the minister negotiate? He said he negotiated the loan to the Netherlands East Indies with a representative of the government of that part of the world. He was fortunate, because when the discussion took place there was no government there. With whom was he negotiating?

Loan to United Kingdom
There was no government; there was civil war in that country. Did he negotiate with one side or the other? Who was it, and for whom was he acting?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The man who came here was Doctor Crena de Iongh, representing the government of the Netherlands East Indies and also the bank of the Netherlands East Indies.


Jean-François Pouliot: He represented the bank, so now we are in international finance. Then to whom was the promise made of $50,000,000 in addition?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was made to the government and the bank of the Netherlands East Indies.


Jean-François Pouliot: W'hat is the guarantee for Canada for that loan and that promise?


James Lorimer Ilsley: What does the hon. gentleman mean by a guarantee?


Jean-François Pouliot: What can we expect in return for that loan and that promise?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an undertaking to repay, just as there is from the other countries to which we have lent money; and there is every expectation that it will be repaid. There is an established government in the Netherlands East Indies at the present time, with great assets and resources, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, great resources, which have never been enjoyed by Canada. We had no trade whatever with the Netherlands East Indies. They produce rubber, and now that we are manufacturing synthetic rubber in such quantities in Canada we do not need anything from them.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I have something to say about that. I do not want to oppose the measure, but I want to be an eye-opener to my colleagues whom I respect, and to the minister himself. I have never been bulldozed by anybody in' connection with what I have to say, because I am sincere. And I believe I am right, until it is proven that I am wrong. I do not agree simply because Mr. So-and-So says something. I will agree when something is sensible, fair, and in accordance with the facts.
There was a civil war in the Netherlands East Indies, but the minister says he did not lend money to those people to buy ammunition and arms. But what he did gave more
opportunity to the people to fight each other, although the minister says he did not buy their equipment.
There are some further points I would bring to the attention of the committee. Yesterday the minister said:
During the next few years the United Kingdom is not going to be able to get enough foreign exchange from her exports to other countries, her earnings from shipping, insurance and financial services rendered to other countries, the earnings on her outstanding foreign investments, tourist expenditures in the United Kingdom, etc., to enable her, without borrowing, to pay for the goods and services which she will require from other countries, the interest on her foreign indebtedness and other current account liabilities to other countries.
Well, she is no worse off than we are, because, as the minister said at page 3238 of Hansard for 1945, we are not a creditor country. But now we are trying to pump up a flat tire, which is the pound sterling. It is just a flat tire, with a puncture in it, and we are going to pump it up. That is what is being done now.
We are not a creditor nation; we do not have some of the things Great Britain -still has. But we finance her, just the same. Then, the minister continued with these words:
We expect that over the next two or three years Canada will have surpluses of substantial size in her current account balance of payments.
The current accounts of Canada are different from the international accounts of Great Britain. It is not the same thing at all. What the minister is now trying to finance are the international accounts, the external trade, the world trade in the sterling area. I wonder if we are in the sterling area.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, we are not.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are not in the sterling area. But we are financing it, and we maintained it during the war. Our standard of living depends upon our trade, not only with the United Kingdom, but with all nations of the world.	,
Speaking about financing the United Kingdom last year, the minister said that they would go to countries other than the United States and Canada. I wonder if this will be the last loan by Canada to Great Britain. Will it be? Can the minister say that this will be the last loan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not expected that there will be any more.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister's answer is prudent, when he says, "It is not expected". But, as a matter of emergency, we shall have it; we may have another big one next year. And those members who say "Carried, carried" will be the first to swallow it.
Loan to United Kingdom

Then the minister said, with reference to the British preference:
The removal of trade restrictions to which the national advisory committee's report referred, did not relate to tariffs.
Then at page 767, when summarizing the Bretton Woods agreement, he referred to tariff reductions. That is included with reductions in quotas, and so on. If every hon. member will read what appears at page 1226 of Hansard he will have an idea of the magnitude of what has been done by Canada for the United Kingdom. The minister said:
We could not expect repayment of both the book debt and the new loan within a reasonable period-
When he was referring to the cancellation of the debt of $425 million.
Then he added:
Attempting to make the United Kingdom pay off the $425 million debt on top of the $1,250 million loan, we were convinced, would have placed an altogether too heavy burden on Britain's balance of payments.
It was not the debt that was on top of the loan; it was the loan that was on top of the debt, and there was no reason for it.
Then he referred to interest-free loans. The interest-free loan of $700 million, which has been reduced by the sale of securities, was an absurd thing, because Canada was lending the money. We had to pay the interest on it while, on the other hand, those who have the British loan securities were getting the interest and cutting the coupons. All that time Canada was receiving nothing. It is one of the worst transactions one could possibly think of.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the Canadian dollars Great Britain received she turned right back to Canada, all through the war, including the interest she received on her securities. This balance was made up by mutual aid. And had the interest-free loan borne interest it would have meant just that much more mutual aid.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, always "more". Then, the minister gives some information about simple claims, and some claims difficult to determine. There is something about a transaction with the government of India, and reference to the fact that that government owed $48 million to Canada. Instead of giving them that amount, it was assumed by the United Kingdom, and formed part of the settlement. Our credit was transferred, and became a credit of the United Kingdom. As the minister was in such a generous mood, surely he could have done for India at least part of what he did for the Netherlands East Indies, because India is part of the empire, and there is no reason why there should be discrimination against her.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We gave nothing to the Netherlands East Indies.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but we lent a lot.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, we lent.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not spoken about France. I shall wait until we discuss export credits before I mention the loan to Mr. Leon Blum-or "Bloom", if you wish. The country, to my mind, is immaterial. I do not consider the United Kingdom, France, or any other country, except Canada. I know that within a short time this sort of legislation will cause a break in the British empire. Canadians will become so indignant at the taxes they have to pay that they will blame the financial policies of the government. This will break our ties to a greater extent than the Boston tea party destroyed the ties between the United-States and Great Britain.
Reference has been made to communism. Some people are afraid of communism and they contend that this loan offers a means of defence of our religions against communism. Poverty is the mother of communism. Our people are suffering under heavy burdens of taxation. When they think of the expenditures that have been made they are unhappy and miserable. When that sort of thing continues the people turn to different leaders. As far as I am concerned, there is no piece [DOT] of propaganda that is so strong for communism as this particular legislation. In his remarks on April 11, as reported on page 763 of Hansard, the minister said:
This agreement is the keystone in the financial measures and arrangements made by this country for international trade and reconstruction.
The minister was mistaken. It will prove a stumbling block in the path of future international trade. Let me explain that to the committee. We have been building up a sterling area which has proved a challenge to all trading nations which do not belong to it. The Bretton Woods conference was held in an effort to improve trading conditions throughout the world without any exception. Here is what the minister said about the Bretton Woods conference, as reported on page 767 of Hansard'.
There are, broadly speaking, two alternative types of policy open to Britain at the present time. The first and much the more desirable policy from our point of view-
That is the government's.
-is the type reflected in the Bretton Woods agreements and the proposals for expansion of world trade and employment put forward by the United States government. This type of trade and exchange policy involves a minimum of restrictions on trade, tariff reductions,


Loan to United Kingdom
Those are the two words I mentioned a moment ago.
-the elimination of discriminatory import quotas and exchange practices, and the freedom of each country to use any currency that it has obtained through trade with another country in carrying on trade with any third country.
I hope hon. members will read this sentence when they are reading the minister's speech.
This type of policy would make possible not only a high level of trade but freedom in the direction of trade.
That is Bretton Woods, according to the minister.
The alternative type of policy, on the other hand, which is open to the United Kingdom is one of bilaterial arrangements -
It could be multilateral.
-in which Britain would purchase goods on condition that the selling country would take British goods in exchange, one involving discrimination in both importing and exporting and substantial restrictions on the use of currency received by exporting countries. Under this type of policy if Britain were forced to follow it, she would endeavour to make the most of the bargaining power which her huge import markets give her in order to improve the terms on which she trades and to force her exports into the markets of other countries.
Then going to page 1227 of Hansard we find that yesterday the minister said this:
I was thinking particularly, as I indicated, of the countries of the sterling area and of western Europe, and I was trying to show that unless Britain were assisted and encouraged to follow a liberal trade and currency policy she would be forced into restrictionist and discriminatory policies which would have an extremely bad effect on Canada, both directly and indirectly-the latter because of the effect which Britain's course of action would have on many other countries which constitute good markets for Canadian goods.
As yet the Bretton Woods agreement is not in effect. This loan is in addition to that agreement. It is being put through before we know the results of Bretton Woods. The United Kingdom is simply building a trade dugout or shelter into which she can retire if Bretton Woods does not work. It is simply a stumbling block being placed in front of our future international and trade relations.
Probably what I have said is premature. Hon. members may not be disposed to believe in it although they have been good enough to listen to me. I felt it was my duty to inform them. I have no peculiar interest in the matter. I spent many days during the Easter holidays working on this matter in order that I might be able to inform my colleagues. Whether it has been worth it, I do not know. But as long as I have done it my conscience is clear. I have warned hon. members and I shall not be responsible for anything that may happen. Had I not said
what I said I would have felt guilty; my conscience would not have been clear and I would have been ashamed to look my colleagues in the eye.
I have another explanation to offer. Yesterday a brilliant journalist asked me why I had not risen to force a vote the other night when some other hon. members rose in their places. My answer is obvious. No hon. member of parliament has tried to praise the new generation of members of parliament more than I have. I am proud to be their colleague and I have great admiration for them. I know that Ottawa is the most tedious place in the world. I know that unless a man works hard it is impossible for him to stay here very long. I said to myself that it was not fair to force a vote at a time when some hon. members had not been notified about the matter; I felt that they should be given time to consider it. On April 16 when the clauses were going through so fast, I rose when we reached the fourth clause for two purposes: first, to give the minister an opportunity to answer my questions and, second, to give my colleagues a chance to think over the matter.
I worked hard yesterday and I placed some information on Hansard, some of which I received from the minister. Some of that is good; some of it is bad and some of it does not mean anything, but it is there and it is up to hon. members to express themselves upon it. I have informed everybody to the best of my ability. I admit that the information I have given is far from complete, but it is supplementary to that which has been given by the Minister of Finance, and it may be clearer. I thank my colleagues and the minister for their patience in listening to me.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5 - U. K. indebtedness under commonwealth air training plan extinguished.
Mr. DORION:: Does the effect of this
section constitute a loan or a gift?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the cancellation of the amount of an expenditure which has already been made years ago, and for which the United Kingdom owes us a book debt.


Frédéric Dorion: I should like to ask why the amount is not mentioned in the section?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because it is mentioned in the agreement and the agreement is mentioned in the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Loan to United Kingdom
William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the bill?


Frédéric Dorion: On division.


John Bracken: Can the minister give us any information on the present state of the United States loan to Britain? Has he any information beyond what has appeared in the press?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not know how it is getting along or what the prospects are, but I am hopeful.


John Bracken: The opinion seems to be that the legislation will pass congress and the loan be made. But in the event that it should not pass and the loan not be made, can the minister tell us briefly what the effect would be with respect to our loan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: By section 8 our act will not come into force until there is a proclamation, and that may apply to any portion of the act. The result of the defeat of the loan in the United States would in all probability be that we would not proclaim certain sections of this act. Probably it would be well for me to read again the letter that I wrote to the chancellor of the exchequer covering the situation that might arise. It is as follows:
Ottawa, 6th March, 1916. Dear Chancellor of the Exchequer,
On the occasion of the signature of the financial agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada, I should like to place on record our understanding regarding the entry into force and implementation of this agreement in relation to the action by the United States congress on the financial agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States, signed at Washington on December, 1915.
The agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada has been drawn up in the expectation that the Anglo-American agreement will be approved by congress and will enter into force some time during the current year. If, however, congress does not approve the Anglo-American agreement, our understanding is that, in the terms of article 8 of our agreement, a major change would1 have occurred it the international financial situation, which would materially alter prospective benefits and obligations flowing from our agreement, and that consequently it would be necessary forthwith to consider what changes in the provisions of our agreement the two governments should agree to make, subject to such legislative approval as may be necessary. In these circumstances, it is also our understanding that articles 5, 6 and 7 of our agreement will not be implemented until it is known whether the United States congress has approved the Anglo-American agreement. I agree, however, that these articles are to be implemented immediately congress approves that agreement.
I should appreciate it if you would confirm that the above understanding is in accordance with that of your government.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Ilsley.
Article 5 is the article relating to exchange and import arrangements; article 6 is our agreement to extend the 1942 loan for another five years interest-free; and article 7 is our cancellation of the commonwealth air training plan. These are not going to be brought into force until we know what happens to the loan in the United States.


John Bracken: Will this Canadian loan be made regardless of whether or not the United States loan is made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not certain. It is open to us to draw back on that under article 8. Naturally, purchases are being financed at the present time and some money will be advanced .after this legislation goes through, even before we know whether the United States loan will go through or not. But it would be open to us to draw back if the loan in the United States did not go through because the defeat of the loan in the United States would be a major change in the international financial situation which would materially alter prospective benefits and obligations flowing from our agreement. Consequently it would be necessary to consider forthwith what changes in the provisions of our agreement the two governments should agree to make subject to such legislative approval as may be necessary. Legally I do not know just what the position would be should the United Kingdom not agree to make these changes, but I know that the relations between the two governments are such that the legal feature would be immaterial. The United Kingdom government understand, and so state in their confirmation of our understanding in this letter, that we have done all this on the expectation that the loan would go through in the United States. If it does not, there is a major change. The main benefits we can expect to get from this loan are dependent upon the loan going through in the United States, thus putting the United Kingdom in a position to be an expanding and reliable market, something that is of great advantage to the United States as it is to us.


John Bracken: The minister has explained what the law permits the government to do in the event that the United States loan is not made. My question was simply this, and I do not think the minister is trying to evade it: If the United States loan to Britain rs not made, will our loan still be made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We would immediately have to get in touch with the United Kingdom and consider the situation. I cannot say whether the full amount of the loan in that event would be made or not. Quite a lot of money would already have been advanced

Loan to United Kingdom
by that time anyway, and whether we would saw it off then or go the full way is something that would have to be taken up at that time. I cannot commit the government on that.


John Bracken: The position, then, is this. Once this measure passes these two houses, the government will be enabled to make a loan of 11,250,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And will be bound to make it if the United States loan goes through.


John Bracken: In the event of the failure of the other loan, you will not be bound to make any part of our loan save what has
been already advanced.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know exactly what the legal position is as between us and the United Kingdom because the undertaking is one that must be carefully considered when the situation arises. But, whatever the legal position is, I would say that is substantially the situation, that we would then be free- perhaps not legally as between ourselves and the United Kingdom but we would be free within the spirit of the understanding-to say, , "No; a smaller loan is all that we should enter into under the new circumstances".


John Bracken: From what the minister says, I gather that the government does not now know what its own attitude would be in that event?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Something would
depend on the time. There are things one cannot foresee.


John Bracken: I am only trying to
understand what the position is. I am not trying to embarrass the minister. I should like to know what [DOT] powers are given the government and what the government intends to do with those powers when it has them. My understanding is that if the United States loan is made, this loan will be made in full?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


John Bracken: And these other concessions will also be made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


John Bracken: If the United States loan fails, then you look at the whole situation again ?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: And it is just possible that no further advances might be made-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is possible.


John Bracken: -but likely that some adjustment, some loans within the maximum now provided, would be made available?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, with regard to the last few words, we shall have to consider carefully What we should do. Here is this flow of exports going out of the country and the government has to act with great responsibility about shutting that off.


John Bracken: I am trying to learn what you will do; that is all. You are a little hesitant about being definite.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So I should be.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it not a fact that a major change in the international situation might involve something larger than the refusal of congress to approve the United States loan? If that loan, to the United Kingdom from the United States does not materialize, is it not quite possible that Great Britain might withdraw from the Bretton Woods agreement?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: In that event a major change occurs in world trade and commercial arrangements, which weuld necessitate a reconsideration of the whole of our business with the United Kingdom.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: I should think that would be the thing, because that certainly would necessitate a review of everything we are talking about to-day. If the United States congress refuses to approve the loan and the Bretton Woods agreement falls down, as far as Britain is concerned, it puts the whole world into a chaotic situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: That is understandable, and all I want to know is what the government's policy is with respect to the loan to Great Britain in the event of the United States loan failing. I think I understand the situation, although the minister himself is not very specific.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot be.


John Bracken: He will look at the whole picture again and determine what policy is best in the interests of Canada, of trade, and so on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Why should the failure of Britain to accept the Bretton Woods agreement influence us in the advancing of this loan? Britain will need the loan in case she
12SS
Loan to United Kingdom

withdraws from Bretton Woods just as much as if she does not. Why should her refusal to accept the Bretton Woods agreement, if it is contingent upon the United States ratifying their loan, have an influence on us and necessitate our reconsidering this loan? That needs to be cleared up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman puts too much stress upon the withdrawal from the Bretton Woods agreement as a factor in the transaction. There will be more serious consequences than those arising from a withdrawal from the Bretton Woods agreement. The United Kingdom would in all probability not be able to reestablish herself as a multilateral trading nation if the United States loan did not go through. This is not simply a question of lending some money to a customer who will turn round and spend that money on your goods. The United States loan and this loan will make it possible for the United Kingdom to get into the way of trading, and this loan by itself cannot accomplish that end. The United States loan is necessary also.


John Horne Blackmore: This loan would help.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It cannot do the job; it is inadequate. It will take the two of them; and if the other part, the larger part, falls out, then Canada has to consider just what it is in her interests to do. You have then a nation driven into a corner, so to speak, so that it may have to adopt the most restrictive practices; and whether this country would be justified under those circumstances in continuing to advance money to it, having in mind its obligations to its own people, is a question that will have to be considered very carefully at the time.


John Horne Blackmore: Britain would be just as likely to be able to repay us this loan if she did not accept Bretton Woods as if she did, would she not? In other words, Britain is just as likely to be able to produce the goods that Canada needs if Britain does not accept Bretton Woods, or if Britain withdraws from Bretton Woods, as she would be if she continued under Bretton Woods. Canada is looking at the ability of Great Britain to repay the loan and if Canada's willingness to advance the loan is contingent upon Great Britain's ability to repay the loan, then it requires some explanation to make it clear to the people why we should not go on with the loan, whether the United States ratifies its loan or does not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ability to repay is not the only consideration. It is the ability of Great Britain to buy in volume, and steadily, in Canada and pay for what she buys in a cur-

rency that is convertible. That is the important thing, and a course of action wihch will probably lead other nations to follow is something that must be considered. I shall not go over all the arguments here. If Great Britain takes a certain course the probability is that the nations of western Europe will follow Great Britain or do the same as Great Britain, and then you have a very serious situation confronting Canada.


Victor Quelch: The minister, earlier in the discussion, emphasized that in all probability we would not altogether accept goods from Britain in payment of our credits, that we would exchange some of our credits for United States dollars, owing to the fact that, under Bretton Woods, sterling would be convertible into United States dollars. If Bretton Woods fails, sterling will not be convertible. In that event we would not be able to convert our credits into United States dollars and we would have to be willing to accept payment in British goods, which in my opinion would be a good thing in the long run.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to get into an argument on that, but that would upset your plans with somebody else. If you equalize your imports and exports as between Canada and the United Kingdom, are you going to do the same with the United States?


Victor Quelch: Why should not the United States be willing to buy a sufficient quantity-of goods from Canada to balance trade? There is no reason why we could not have a tripartite agreement. WTe could point out to the United States that we have a surplus credit in England of so many million dollars and we could trade that with the United States.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A few moments ago the minister made some reference to what would happen if the United States loan were not carried. I gathered from what he said that it would affect our supplying of goods to Great Britain under our loan. I have in mind a group of businessmen who are supplying $50 million worth of goods of one kind or another to Great Britain. They will have to make contracts with a lot of other business men in Canada to supply the various parts of the order. From what the minister said I would gather that if the United States loan were defeated the order might be cancelled and that under this loan we would be responsible for a portion of what had already been contracted for in getting the order together for shipment to Great Britain on the understanding that the loan would be ratified. Suppose these business men have spent $10 million on the $50 million order. Am I right

Loan to United Kingdom
in my understanding that if the United States loan is defeated we shall have to cancel the remainder of the order?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is pretty hard to say what would be done in particular situations, or what the effect would be on particular situations. I should not really go farther than reiterate the language which was used in the letter which I wrote to the chancellor of the exchequer, and which he confirmed. I have read it once or twice. I said that this would be a major change; the defeat of the United States loan would be a major change and "it would be necessary forthwith to consider what changes in the provisions of our agreement the two governments should agree to make, subject to such legislative approval as may be necessary". It is difficult to say very much more than that.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I am strongly of opinion that any word which might emanate from anyone whomsoever in Canada who has any responsibility behind him that would in any way interfere with our neighbour's affairs and her relations, with the United Kingdom and give them an excuse to point to any persons in Canada who were doubtful of this particular loan wrould not only have a damaging effect on this very necessary world movement in financial circles but give the isolationists in the United States another opportunity-


Frédéric Dorion: It is always the same.


Joseph Henry Harris: A bird by any other name is just as good-looking-to defeat the purposes of this loan. If such a thing happened we must consider where Canada will end up. At the present time we are all right, but this is of such serious moment to us and to the present financial structure that we should do nothing to jeopardize it. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation said that it is of importance to the world trade position that w-e occupy, and that is right. "VVe should not pry into our neighbour's affairs at -this critical time, because, while we are doing so, our own will be sadly neglected. Why? The minister knows, as do all other hon. members, that if anything happens to the present financial arrangements, within half a decade we shall see a split between the two blocs of currency, namely, the dollar bloc and the sterling bloc. I say to my fellow Canadians that if that happens and any stumbling block is put in the way of multilateral trade that will emanate from this financial arrangement which is attracting the attention of the whole commercial world, Canada, in spite of her wealth of natural resources, will find herself in the
last position so far as her economy is concerned. Why is that so? It is very simple. We all know the spirit of the British people. They will go hungry, and more hungry; they will tighten their belts and get along within the confines of their own financial orbit. They will suffer and suffer more but they will not quit producing. There is more production in Britain per man to-day than in Canada or the United States. As they gradually fill their own shelves which are bereft of most things now and tighten their belts, what will they get? They have 400 million people in Europe waiting for them to increase production. What else have they in the sterling bloc? They have South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and British India. Every time a British pound sterling goes into those areas it buys a pound and quarter's worth of effort in Australia, New Zealand and in the other depreciated currency countries. Where will our trade be while that trade is going on? Britain is recovering. Millions of pounds sterling are lying idle in London and we cannot use them in this country because they are not exchangeable.
Therefore, in the final analyses, if we tamper with this loan, or if anyone helps to defeat this big loan that is now before the congress of the United States we are going to split the world's two currencies; and when we get through spending the extra money which we have in our pockets now, and when the shelves of our country are filled we shall find ourselves, in spite of our God-given resources, the last on the trading list.
I hesitate to take up much of the time of the committee on this subject, and I hesitated to the last minute for fear that any of my words might be used by any of our neighbours to defeat the purpose of the United States loan. May I close with these words:. Let nothing emanate from any Canadian of responsibility which will in any way make our fellow Britons go more hungry, or which will in any way destroy what good might come from this financial arrangement which the nations that think as we do feel is necessary at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: I have no desire to delay proceedings, but I think perhaps a word or two more might be said by way of encouragement. From things I have heard and read I have gathered the impression that a good number of people are quite pessimistic with respect to this loan in case the United States should fail to ratify the loan it is proposing to make. In addition to what was said by the minister a moment ago, I think it must be said
Loan to United Kingdom

that if we advance this loan to Great Britain the pounds which we receive from Britain can be converted into the monetary unit of any one of the nations belonging to the sterling bloc. Therefore it seems to me that our chances of receiving repayment for this loan do not depend entirely upon the productive capacity of Great Britain but rather upon the wide and varied productive capacity of all the members of the sterling bloc. Consequently I believe we can afford to go forward pretty confidently, without worrying too greatly whether or not the United States loan is ratified. I do not mean that we do not want the United States to ratify that loan, but I believe there is in this country and in many other members of the British commonwealth too much of a tendency to worry unduly about what the United States does or does not do. The sooner we begin to appreciate that Providence has placed the peoples of the British commonwealth in a preferred position from Ihe point of view of production and trade, the sooner we shall go forward with much greater confidence than we have had manifest for a - long time. So that from what has been said up to the present time I see no reason why Canada should not proceed with her loan, whether or not the United States loan is ratified.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
(Translation) :


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for days to speeches made in this house on the bill under consideration. In spite of the haste with which some of my colleagues would like to see it adopted, it is to my way of thinking, the most important legislation submitted to us since the close of the war.
There is no reason for doubting that the present bill contemplates a gift of nearly half a billion dollars, and, moreover, in spite of all claims to the contrary, this measure will cost the Canadian taxpayer around 66 million dollars annually for the next five years. This matter deserves our close consideration and there is no need to hurry it through. In this connection, I congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for his splendid work, for the information he has either given us or obtained for us from the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley).
When I say that we should not hurry this bill through, I have excellent support, for the newspaper Le Droit of April 2, 1946, reports

as follows an interview granted by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), to a labour organization, the CTCC:
Mr. St. Laurent regrets that the CTCC is so definitely opposed to the loan to Great Britain, but he adds that, to a certain extent, he understands the position they are taking on the matter, because he himself was convinced, only after having spent three or four weeks in discussing the subject with the British delegation and the North American experts, that this loan was the best policy to insure us against unemployment, trade stagnation and a recurrence of depression in Canada.
It is therefore understandable, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Minister of Justice had to spend three or four weeks in consultation with experts to grasp the full scope of this financial agreement, that the house should consider it carefully and take all the time it needs for doing so, in order to be in a position to adopt or reject it, as the case may be.
Mr. Speaker, the most often repeated argument, in the course of this debate, has been that the present agreement is bound to be helpful to both our tra.de and our industries. It cannot be denied that if we open credits to foreign countries we shall have no trouble in selling the goods we produce. That brings up , the picture of a merchant who, to boost his trade, after having stored a large stock, would one day, tell his customers: "I am opening, for each of you, a credit account of S10,000; all I ask you is to make your purchases at my store." In the few days or w'eeks following that offer, the business of that merchant would be very brisk; you may be sure of that; however, the state of his business would be pitiable at the end of three or four weeks: he would inevitably be faced with bankruptcy. Who, I ask you, would have benefited from the action of that merchant? The go-betweens, the distributors of the goods, those who, in the case now under consideration, we call the financial organization of the country.
There is no doubt that, having accumulated, as the Minister of Finance pointed out the other day, wealth to the amount of ten billion dollars during the war, the high financiers and trusts wish to keep on doing so; that is the reason why they are unanimous in their support of the loan to England. However, when the interest become due, the annual amount of 66 million dollars will have to be paid out of the public funds, that is to say, the taxpayer will have to pay for the gift we propose to make now.
In the opinion of some-it is right here in the statement made by the right hon. the Minister of Justice which I have just read- this loan is an insurance policy. Considering the premium, the cost of such an insurance

Loan to United Kingdom
policy is prohibitive. Some newspapers and certain hon. members here in the house have used other arguments; those who object to the loan, for instance,-it is the same old story which we have heard so often-are considered as isolationists. Mr. Speaker, the strongest argument in favour of the loan has been put forward by a Quebec newspaperman who reports daily in certain Quebec newspapers; he used two columns of a newspaper to ax-plain an argument based on the following statement: Those who object to the loan are all demagogues. When one can think of no better argument to defend such a measure, it is high time that it be carefully studied, because it cannot be very sound.
This is claimed to be a loan and it is always referred to as such. But the Minister of Finance himself said a moment ago that the bill now before the house calls for a gift to England of half a billion dollars, through cancellation of a debt owed us by that country. When the lender in search of a borrower cannot force his loans on anyone without paying the interest himself, without disbursing his own money, his actions are contrary to all sound economical and financial principles, although I am not very conversant with such matters. I always thought, Mr. Speaker, that lending was supposed to be a profitable business; however, if we have to pay interest ourselves, it cannot be advantageous to us.
It is evident-this has often been stated both in the house and outside-that this agreement is a consequence of the war and of the policies pursued during the last few years. So that if we must as an aftermath of the war, grant a loan which, as I have already said, will cost a lot of the taxpayers' money, whilst during the war some people were allowed to accumulate iff excess of ten billion dollars-the Minister of Finance has admitted so himself-would it not be simpler to levy this money from those who have profited from the war? Were this to be the government's policy, I know not a single Canadian who would object to such a course of action in order to help Great Britain. Let the government take the money where it lies, without compelling the soldiers who were overseas for four or five years to pay interest on the capital they fought to preserve. We really took part in that war to safeguard our economic and democratic system, and those who fought the war and are now coming back to Canada will have to contribute their share of interest on those billions. This bill is unfair to them, as well as to all taxpayers. For those reasons, I shall fight it to the last.
(Text):	*


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Ilsley) which was agreed to on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Abbott	Cruickshank
Adamson	Daniel
Argue	Dechene
Baker	Denis
Barrett	Desmond
Beaudoin	Diefenbaker
Belzile	Dion (Lake St. John-
Benidickson	Roberval)
Bentley	Douglas
Bertrand (Laurier)	Drope
Bertrand (Prescott)	Emmerson
Black (Chateauguay-	[DOT] Eudes
Huntingdon)	Farquhar
Black (Cumberland)	Ferguson
Black (Yukon)	Fleming
Blackmore	Fontaine
Blair	Fournier (Hull)
Blanchette	Fraser
Bonnier	Fulton
Boucher	Gariepy
Bourget	Gauthier (Nipissing)
Borverman	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Bracken	Gillis
Bradette	Gingues
Bradshaw	Gladstone
Bridges	Golding
Brown	Gour (Russell)
Brunelle	Gourd (Chapleau)
Bryce	Grant
Burton	Green
Campbell	Hackett
Cardiff	Halid
Case	Hansell
Casselman	Harkness
Castleden	Harris (Danforth)
Clark	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Cleaver	Healy
Cloutier	Herridge
Coekeram	Hlynka
Col dwell	Hodgson
C'ote (Matapedia-	Howe
Matane)	Ilsley
Cote (Verdun)	Isnor
Croll	Irvine
Loan to United Kingdom

Jaenicke	Mitchell
Jaques	Moore
Jean	Mullins
Johnston	M utcli
Jutras	Nicholson
Kirk	Nixon
Knight	Parent
Kuhl	Pearkes
Lafontaine	Pinard
Lalonde	Probe
Leger	Quelch
Lennard	Ifaymond (Wright)
Little	Reid
Lockhart	Richard (Gloucester)
Low	Rinfret
McCubbin	Robinson (Bruce)
McCulloch (Pictou)	Ross (St. Paul's)
McCullough (Assini-	Ross (Souris)
boia)	St. Laurent
Macdonald (Brantford	Senn
City)	Shaw
McDonald (Parry	Sinclair (Vancouver
Sound)	North)
McGarry	Rinnott
McGregor	Skey
Mcllraith	Smith (Calgary West)
Maclnnis	Smith (York North)
Mclvor	Stewart (Winnipeg
McKay	North)
Mackenzie	Stuart (Charlotte)
MacKinnon	Stirling
MacLean	Stokes
McLure	Strum, Mrs.
MacNicol	Townley-Smith
Maloney	Tremblay
Marier	Viau
Marquis	Webb
Marshall	Weir
Martin Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East) M ayhew	White (Hastings-Peterborough) Whitman Winkler
Merritt	Wright
Michaud	Wylie-167.
NAYS Messrs:	
Dorion	Lacombe
Gagnon	LaCroix
Hamel	Pouliot-6.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I was	
paired with the hon.	member for Moose Jaw
(Mr. Thatcher). Had	I voted I would have
voted for the motion.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: : I was paired with the
hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.	
Bill read the third	time and passed.
At six o'clock the	house took recess.
	After Recess
The house	resumed at eight o'clock.
	PRIVATE BILLS ,
	SECOND HEADINGS
Bill No. 30, to amend the act incorporating the National Council of Women of Canada.- Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).	

Bill No. 59, to incorporate Canadian Acceptance Company.-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).
Bill No. 60, respecting Rupert's Land Trading Company.-Mr. Maybank. "



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fair for the second reading of bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: I shall sum up in five minutes my main contentions of last Tuesday. First of all, I pointed out that my chief concern with regard to the amendment was with reference to the wheat board and not the grain exchange. As I pointed out before, the grain exchange is not mentioned in the bill. This is simply a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and I was sincerely of the opinion that this amendment would weaken the position of the Canadian wheat board to such an extent that it was my duty to oppose it. I said also that according to my reading of this amendment the effect would be to expropriate most if not all of the country elevators throughout western Canada, because, as I interpret the amendment, the Canadian wheat board, which is the instrument of the government and as such should be considered as the government, has to take over all marketing facilities.
In my home town there is an elevator owned and operated by the farmers, and if a wheat transaction were to take place in that town the Canadian wheat board in Winnipeg would have to send a civil servant, an employee, pay him his salary and expenses and provide him with a car to come to that town for the sole purpose of transacting a wheat sale ranging anywhere from, I can imagine, five or six up to a thousand bushels of wheat, whereas at the present time the Canadian wheat board can simply call the elevator man on the telephone and ask him to carry out the transaction for the wheat board, and the whole thing can be done at the cost of a few cents.
I contend that this amendment is too loose to serve the purpose the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has in mind and it would be unwise to proceed with it. I pointed out the other day that, as regards the contention of the sponsor of the bill that the board was paying for unnecessary services,
I was unable to discover from any reports of the wheat board that they were doing so. However, if that is the case-I do not know and I have not been able to find out-the best way in which to vindicate the charge

Canadian Wheat Board
is to bring the whole matter before the committee on agriculture, have the officials come here, question them, and get the neces-. sary information from them. I respectfully suggested on Tuesday last that we submit the whole matter to the committee on agriculture. This amendment, to put it in a nutshell, is purely and simply a form of socialism of a most expensive kind, and I strongly oppose it.
As far as the grain exchange is concerned, and it is extremely incidental in this bill, I for one do not believe that we should to-day return to the old system of marketing as we knew it in the past. I have here a humorous clipping which I shall read to the house, not because it is authentic but because it reflects to some extent the attitude of the farmer and the attitude he had at that time. It gives a definition of wheat.
Wheat, it appears, is a seed that is planted and grown to keep the producer broke and the buyer crazy. It is planted in the spring, mortgaged in the summer, and lost in the fall. Its quality varies according to the amount of rain or frost experienced during the growing season. A man who can guess nearest to this quality is called a wheat grader by the public and a fool by the farmer.
The price of -wheat is determined at primary market. It goes down when one has bought, and up when one has sold. All of which reminds us of the story of the buyer working for a group of millers who came west to watch the wheat markets. After a few days he wired his principals to this effect:
"Some think wheat will go down and some think it will go up. I think so, too. Whatever you will do will be wrong. Act at once.
This is not accurate, but those who have known conditions in western Canada during the thirties, and when they had to depend entirely on the supply and demand for the price of wheat, will realize that it reflects to a certain extent the predicament of the farmers at the time.. That situation has been relieved by the establishment of the wheat board. I repeat that I feel strongly in regard to the Canadian wheat board, and any amendment that would tend to weaken its position or worsen the situation I feel it my duty to oppose.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I rise to support the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I wish to assure the hon. member who has just taken his seat that this group is wholeheartedly behind the wheat board. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Battle River will strengthen the wheat board.
In 1944 Mr. Mclvor appeared before the agriculture committee of the House of Commons. On examining the details of the operation of the board, we found that his hands were 63260-82
tied because he was working under arrangements which were made in 1903. If farmers carried on their business like that I do not know where they would be to-day. To be progressive, business must keep up with the times. One could compare the system which has been laid down for the wheat board to follow with a farmer driving twenty-five miles into town with a horse and buggy or ploughing with oxen. They ploughed with oxen in the west in 1903. The wheat board of to-day operates under arrangements which were followed in 1803.
If this bill were passed it would give the wheat board power to do business the way in which they should do it in a modern world. It would streamline the board instead of tying, its hands. To-day the wheat board is following the custom that was in vogue thirty-five or forty years ago. It should be changed. I have great respect for the wheat board. I have told the minister that before and I know he believes me when I say it. They have done a good job. It is unfortunate that they were not given the chance to do with rye what they have done with wheat, namely, stabilize the price. The man who eats rye bread to-day is paying around $2.90 a bushel for it. That is a deplorable state of affairs. The farmers receives one dollar and some odd cents for it and after the operations that it goes through the poor man has to pay $2.80 or $2.90 for it. That sort of thing should not be permitted in a modern world. But because of the way in which the wheat board's hands are tied they have to follow that system.
I have said that this group is in favour of the wheat board. We hope that it will be continued. I should like to see this bill pass to give the board more power than it has ever had because its hands are tied to the old methods that are employed by organizations which to-day are parasites on the backs of the farmers. Anybody who gets paid for a service that is not necessary is a parasite. We have to-day a lot of parasites in the grain trade. Let us hope that the wheat board will be supported in every corner of the house because it is the right and proper way to market grain. I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) bucks up one of these days and puts rye in the same category.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I am going to support this measure but not for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). I do not agree with him that the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has any great claim to the philosophy of socialism. In this respect he is simply following out what for many years has been in the minds of a great many people in western Canada.
Canadian Wheat Board

I wish to point out to the house that there is a considered reason why we support this method of selling wheat. I have no hesitation in saying that whether it is in the mind of the mover of the bill or not, it is certainly in my mind, that this will help to do the very thing which the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) mentioned, namely, eliminate completely from the scene of grain marketing in Canada the Winnipeg grain exchange.
The considered opinions of the people who have supported this measure in the west dates back to the years of the first world war when they had their first experience with it. In 1917-18 the government of the day in its wisdom decided to stop the marketing of grain through the futures or speculative system. They set up a commission to handle the buying and they fixed a price at that time. The following year they felt that they could improve on that particular method and they set up the Canada wheat board which operated until August, 1919. They established a new system of marketing grain in this country, one which had not been tried out before, and which few people would have had the temerity to recommend to the people at that time. Although few people might have had it in mind, the government of the day set up the wheat board to operate in such a way that it made an initial payment at the time of delivery by the wheat producer. The board then gave him a participation certificate, and when the grain was sold through the various buying agencies to the buying or importing countries across the sea and the returns were made and the cost of operating the board was deducted the balance was payable at so much a bushel on each grade of grain when the books were closed.
That was something which pleased a great many farmers. I am not going to try to mislead the house or the people from eastern or other parts of Canada by saying that it pleased every farmer. Farmers are much like anybody else; they differ in their opinions on how to do things. Some of them like the idea of speculation; some of them like to be completely separate and alone or away from any particularly close association in the doing of their business with other people.
When I speak at this time I am speaking from an intimate knowledge of the workings of the minds and the thoughts of those farmers who believe in organization for their own protection. No doubt the others I have mentioned will have numerous champions in this house. Of course they have a perfect right to their own point of view.

When the wheat board of the first world war ceased to operate and the speculative market reopened, the price quoted was about $2.78 a bushel. I do not have that old history with me at the moment; if anyone looks it up he may find I am out a fraction of a cent or a cent, but I think that was the figure. I know that within one year after the Winnipeg grain exchange was opened and speculation was in full force again the price of wheat dropped by $1.60. If you can do quick mental arithmetic you can subtract $1.60 from $2.78 and you will have the figure. Furthermore, by the fall of 1923 when the crop came on the market, wheat was selling at just a little over $1 a bushel, while some grades were considerably below that figure.
I am giving the house this history, because it is important to know the background of the demand which as best I can I am helping to urge in this house, as expressed in this bill. This is a bill, not a resolution; sometimes I become confused, because I am new to this sort of procedure. When we in the west found this condition obtaining on the open, speculative market, represented by the grain exchange, we commenced to organize ourselves, after first having asked the government here in Ottawa to reinstitute the wheat board. For its own reasons the government was unable or unwilling to do so. We need not go into that matter. Governments change; minds change. At that time no doubt they felt they were right, but in any event they did not set up the wheat board again, and as a result we had to organize ourselves. In that organization I must admit that we had a great deal to learn. Like this House of Commons here, we did not know everything back in 1923. Neither we nor they know everything yet, but we have all had twenty-three years of experience since that time.
We went on to organize the great farm marketing institutions, the wheat pools, operating on a voluntary basis somewhat along the lines of the wheat board. In the years 1923 to 1929, when Europe was being rebuilt and rehabilitated after the war, the thing worked fairly well; but when the world collapse came in 1929 and 1930 we found that we were not strong enough, organized in one country alone, even though we were well organized, to withstand the impact of world conditions. At the same time we found that the speculative market was much more ineffective than the wheat pools in maintaining and stabilizing prices for the farmers. We all know the history of what was done by the government of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett at

Canadian Wheat Board
that time. In their own way they tried to maintain what they believed was a free enterprise system in the marketing of grain. They would not interfere with the speculative channels, but they had to do something, and they did perform what were called stabilization operations, which were not very successful but which did help to a certain extent. That gave an indication that these things could be controlled. The farm organizations were continuously pressing for the establishment of a wheat board, with the sole idea of eliminating the grain exchange.
Before getting this far I should have mentioned that there was a certain definite philosophy behind the cooperative grain marketing organizations formed in 1923. On the fly leaf of their handbook you will find, among others, these words:
... to eliminate manipulation, speculation and waste and all unnecessary transactions in the marketing of grain, and to preserve for the producer and consumer their proper profits and economies . . .
That word "profits" will indicate that we were not socialists then, and not all of those in the movement are socialists even yet. They were trying to maintain their proper profits and economies. That was the slogan then, and those words are still on the fly-leaf of the handbook of Canadian cooperative wheat producers. After that we got the wheat board. I do not want to recite a whole lot of history, but in getting that wheat board in 1935 one of the things the farm organizations particularly wanted was a committee to assist and advise the wheat board in the marketing of wheat and the fixing of a price for it There was a great deal of controversy and a great deal of opposition from the operators on the Winnipeg grain exchange to the fixing of that price. Again I do not wish to criticize any individuals here. People did and supported what they thought was proper at that time, but again I am speaking from the point of view of the organized farmers, who wanted the price fixed somewhere near the cost of production. At that time the people who sat in this House of Commons were not convinced that this was a very good idea, but if I gauge the temper of this house to-night, a great many hon. members would violently oppose the removal of controls at the present time so that prices would move either upward or downward at the will of speculators. In any event, at that time they wanted stabilization in the matter of farm products, based on something like the actual cost of production to the farm operator.
So we got the wheat board, and ever since that time we have been attempting to have the board cease using any of those agencies whose 63260-821
operations might be included in the "un-~ necessary transactions" mentioned in the' quotation I gave from the fly-leaf of hand-~ book No. 1 of the Canadian cooperative wheat producers. We were not successful; the" organizations are still carrying on. But other-organizations which at that time had not seen

the picture have now learned that this is' important. For instance, since that time we have seen the organization of the Canadian federation of agriculture. That federation has a twelve-point programme, and point No. 6 is this:
The establishment of a permanent national wheat marketing policy to give encouragement and leadership to development of an international wheat agreement and work out price arrangements which would prevent wide fluctuations.
That means negotiated prices. It does not mean prices arrived at by speculation on the part of some persons who desire to buy or sell options and put up a margin. Point No. 7 states:
Establishment of the Canadian wheat board as the "sole institution" for the marketing of Canadian cereal crops.
In the early days of this organization many people even in the west did not see this picture clearly. Now it is seen and understood by people all over Canada, because the Canadian federation of agriculture represents farm organizations of all kinds, and they are not all cooperatives. There are some organizations which do not claim to be cooperatives but simply to represent the interests of some particular type of farm industry across this dominion. These people belonging to this organization have joined the wheat pools and the organized farmers of the west in endorsing this policy. Some hon. members were-here in the early days of 1942, when a delegation came to Ottawa. They will remember the representations along those lines which, were made at that time. Now we have another world-wide organization in connection-with which I want to remind hon. members of point No. 6 in the recommendations of the federation of agriculture, having to do-with the development of an international world wheat agreement to work out prices. Three years ago we had the Hot Springs food conference, which last fall was crystallized in the united nations food and agriculture organization. One of their plans, as set out in article I of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Act,, said:
The organization shall promote and, where-appropriate, shall recommend national and international action with respect to (d) the improvement of the processing, marketing and. distribution of food and agricultural products..
Canadian Wheat Board

There is no question that all are agreed that the organized methods of marketing cereal products or wheat itself, and including oats and barley to the extent to which they are handled, through the wheat board, has been an improvement. Even the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) agreed to-night that the wheat board has done a magnificent job, and we are very proud of our part in the west in helping to promote the work of that board. I agree with the hon. member that it has brought about a vast improvement in the marketing of cereal products. It has brought advantage to the farmer who has produced those cereals, to the nation of which the farmer is a citizen, and to the purchasers of those products.
When we have something working well, why is it not a good thing to improve it as much as possible? We believe that if the wheat board is given authority to set up its own organization, and if it has not to use unnecessary institutions, there will be an improvement in the situation which will be of value to all concerned.
In the early days many organizations had not agreed that this was a good thing. We had our rural municipal associations which were not yet convinced. Now the rural municipal association, in Saskatchewan at least, *would endorse this policy. We have another "big agricultural association in Saskatchewan, and I should like to emphasize to any who may be listening that the organized agricultural societies of Saskatchewan are not cooperative institutions. They do not bear the name "cooperative"; their philosophy is not based upon the cooperative philosophy in trading. Many of their members believe in it, but the organizations themselves are just as they were when they were created many years ago, namely distinctly local agricultural societies organized and joined together for the purpose of improving production of agricultural products.
They, too, have advanced and learned. They, too, in the past have been the victims of unfortunate circumstances. They, too, are comprised of intelligent me'n. Indeed, right in this corner of the chamber sits an hon. member, namely the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith) who is a high official in that organization. He can vouch for what I am going to say about them. Some of them may believe in speculation, while others believe in cooperative marketing; but all believe in the improvement of production methods. Last January they held a meeting of the Saskatchewan agricultural association in Saskatoon, and at that meeting passed

a resolution containing six points. The first point, considered by them the most important -there are others, but I shall mention only the one because it has reference of the matter before the house to-night-states;
The Canadian wheat board should be the sole marketing agency for coarse grains as well as wheat.
If they passed a resolution like that it is obvious they are not asking to have the wheat board the sole marketing agency, and then expecting that wheat board to diffuse its responsibility and use unnecessary marketing agencies which would eliminate or to a large extent nullify the meaning of the word ''sole" in the resolution.
I make these observations this evening, through you, Mr. Speaker, in order to try to convince the house that the bill before it is an important one and one which has received the support of organized farmers from western Canada, because the experience in past years has convinced them that such action is necessary.
Someone will say, "All these farm organizations do not believe in it." I say that all the big ones do, and that many of the smaller ones do. I cannot vouch for all the smaller ones. However, the ones I have mentioned here this evening have stated their official ideas in the matter, and because of that I do not think there should be any hesitation whatsoever in allowing this bill to come to a vote.
I could give a number of quotations, but if I do not conclude soon I may be accused of having talked out the very thing I wish to support. I hope the house will vote on the 'bill to-night, and thus give the necessary impetus and encouragement to the producers of western Canada, thereby showing them that the rest of Canada is behind their efforts to improve their own conditions.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the terms of the bill I should like to make it clear that so far as I am concerned I am now, and have been ever since I have been in public life, favourable to the policy of the wheat board handling wheat and coarse grains, and doing so exclusively. There can be no doubt as to my stand on the part of anyone who has followed my speeches in the matter.
In regard to this particular bill, however, there seems to be some confusion as to what it attempts to do. For example, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) said that the hands of the wheat board were tied, and that it was the purpose of the bill to untie them. Then the hon. member for Svift Current (Mr. MAY 7, 1940
Canadian W.heat Board
Bentley) said that the purpose of the bill was to give the wheat board the right to set up its own agency, so that it would not have to employ private grain agencies to handle wheat, and this would mean that it would not have to employ cooperative agencies for that purpose.
I believe the wise procedure is to look at the terms of the bill. Section 8 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states the following in paragraph (i):
In selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ without discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, brokers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine.
(j) to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels.
The purpose of the bill is to repeal those very sections which give the wheat board power to employ any marketing agencies it sees fit; and if it finds that any of those marketing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, to utilize and employ its own marketing agencies. So that the act as it stands to-day gives the wheat board the full power either to use existing marketing agencies or to set up its own. I cannot see the cogency of any argument which says, "We want to give the wheat board power to set up its own agencies", and then bring in a bill, and support it, which repeals the section which gives that very power.
Among the great marketing agencies operating in western Canada are the great grain marketing pools, the cooperative grain marketing organizations. They are the ones which are handling to a great extent the grain of western Canada. I take it from the bill presented by the hon. member that he would deprive these great cooperative marketing agencies of the right to handle the grain of the farmers for the wheat board.
As far as I am concerned, and as I said at the beginning, while I am in favour of the wheat board having the exclusive right to handle the grain of the western farmer-and in that I include rye; I have made representations to the Minister of Trade and Commerce accordingly-I would much rather see this grain handled by it through the cooperative organizations which have been set up to take it from the farmer, to ship it to the east, to handle it in the terminal elevators and to Ethip it abroad than by any agency of government, no matter how well it is handled. I have
no hesitation in saying that, whenever it is a choice between cooperation and state socialism,
I will take cooperation every time.


Mr. IRVINE:: In the hon. gentleman's opinion, if this bill is passed will it necessarily eliminate the grain exchange?


Walter Adam Tucker: I would say that if this bill passes it will not eliminate the grain exchange at all. They can still go on dealing in futures and so on. The only thing it would do would be to prevent the various cooperative agencies, such as the wheat pool and other agencies, from handling the grain of the farmer at the behest and under the direction of the wheat board.


Mr. FAIR:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. I suggest that I be permitted to make my speech. I do not think there is any doubt that what I am saying is correct. The purpose of this bill is to see that the wheat board shall not have a free hand. It definitely provides:
... to employ such methods, consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, as will not involve the payment, directly or indirectly, of any commission or other remuneration to commission merchants, brokers or other marketing agencies.
I will ask the hon. member, and he can answer me when he closes this debate, if the wheat pool of Saskatchewan is not a marketing agency. In other words, it would deprive the wheat pool of the right to earn money in the handling of the farmer's grain as a marketing agency. Surely the hon. member could not be serious in asking the house to vote for a bill that would accomplish that purpose. If he wants to do away with the grain exchange let him bring in a bill that will do away with it. Let him be outright and straightforward in his methods instead of striking at the great cooperative marketing agencies, which we in the west, including myself, are so proud of, and which I may say I was one cf the first to join when they started to get going.


Robert Fair: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman is accusing me of something which he knows very well is not in my mind and is not my intention. I have stated definitely that my intention was, indirectly, to do away with the grain exchange.


James Horace King: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would say to the hon. member who has sponsored this bill that the courts have ruled over and over again that you must judge the intention of legislation

Canadian Wheat Board
by what the law says, not by what is said by the person who introduced it. We are being asked to vote for a bill the purpose of which is to deprive the wheat board of the right to employ the marketing agencies which now exist throughout western Canada and other parts of Canada as well. No matter what the hon. gentleman says he intended to do, that is what this bill will do if it is passed. He has asked the house to endorse that principle. He has really caused a situation to be created whereby anyone who points out these facts is accused of being in favour of the grain exchange. As was pointed out by the hon. member who just asked me a question, the effect of this will not be to close the grain exchange. It will interfere more with the cooperative marketing agencies of western Canada than it will with the grain exchange.
If the hon. member is going to undertake to take up the time of this house by introducing a bill which, if passed, will cripple the great cooperative marketing agencies of western Canada, I will not remain in my seat no matter what charge may be brought against me that I am trying to uphold the grain exchange. I feel justified in rising in my place in this House of Commons and taking this stand, because my view about the upholding of the wheat board and of the cooperative organizations is so well known in Saskatchewan that nobody can dare to say that I would do anything that would harm them or in any way oppose them.


Robert Fair: Do not tucker yourself out.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Robert Fair: Do not tucker yourself out.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is very funny indeed. That is just about as foolish as introducing a bill which does exactly the opposite to what the hon. member says he intended to do. The watchword of every man representing a grain farming constituency in this house should be, in the light of the grand record of the wheat board, "Hands off the wheat board; do not interfere with them; give them a chance to carry out the work they have been doing so well in the past and, if they require it, give them even more power to deal with grain that they have no right to deal with exclusively to-day." In other words, add to their rights; do not interfere with them.
In regard to the policy which is being enforced under the present wheat board act, I would say at this particular stage when there seems to be some doubt as to what the proper policy should be in regard to farm products:

I think the farmer is just as much entitled to a reasonable minimum price for his product as the working man is entitled to a fixed minimum wage. The farmer is just as much entitled to a fair share of the national income consistent with the amount of work he does and the amount he has invested and so on as any other particular group in the community. This government in introducing and having passed by this house the Agricultural Prices Support Act has given its approval to such a policy. I should like to put on the record section 9, subsection 2, of that act which was passed in 1944 and which, I take it, is still the policy of the government as enacted by this parliament. This subsection reads:
(2) In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
There is a definite pronouncement of a fair deal for the farmers of this country. As far as I am concerned I hope and believe the government will never waiver from its policy of a fair and just deal for the farmer.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: When is the act to be proclaimed?


Walter Adam Tucker: It has been proclaimed in part already and the chairman of the board is already functioning.
With regard to wheat, I take it that the policy, of a minimum price must be carried out by the wheat board. For that reason I should like to see the wheat board continue with full power, or with added powers if those are needed to discharge fully the obligation which this parliament has assumed toward the great agricultural industry of this country.
Some people may ask why the farmer should have fixed prices for his products. One of the first reasons I would suggest-and I can speak with a great deal of feeling because all my life I have been either a farmer or closely in touch with farmers-is that the hazards of farming are enough for a farmer to contend with without having to be faced with a fall in the prices which will wipe out, even though he has a good crop, what he has the right to expect from his months of hard work. In that connection I wish to quote from a speech of the president of the Canadian federation of agriculture to that organization in January, 1945, which I commend to the consideration of the house:

Canadian Wheat Board
To the people of Canada not engaged in agriculture we say, in all seriousness: If costs of distribution are to be continued at approximately present margins; if capital employed in agriculture is to continue to receive rewards on the same basis as in recent years; and more particularly if the greater part of industry in Canada is to hang on to the protection it has enjoyed, then equality of exchange for agriculture definitely means relatively high prices for agricultural products and correspondingly high retail food prices.
If most other industries and groups persist in clinging to practices and privileges designed to hold their prices or rewards for services on a high level, then in all justice agricultural prices must be placed on the same level.
Please note, agriculture is not choosing that level, nor do we recommend it. But if Canada decides to maintain the greater part of her economy on that higher level, and to pay the farmer on the basis of a cheap food policy, the result will be to exploit the purchasing power and living standards of people living on the land, bring tragedy to agriculture, and eventually the tragedy of unemployment and depression to the nation as a whole. A cheap food policy at the expense of agriculture will be bad business for everybody and a costly blunder for Canada in the end.
What is the policy in regard to wheat? I have heard it said on the floor of this house that a very high price was obtained for wheat following the last war, but in case I have not time to read the quotation I wished to read in regard to this, let me preface what I am going to say by this. The farm leaders of western Canada have upheld the policy of price stabilization and loyally supported it.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will read proof of that if I have time. But at the same time if the prices of the things which the farmer has to buy, such as fuel oil and farm implements, are permitted to rise, then an adjustment must be permitted in the prices of the products which the farmer has to sell.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is in accordance with the policy of the government and laid down in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. In this regard, however, I would say this. One of the things that the farmers of western Canada feel most strongly about is that while they are not asking for the last cent they can get for their wheat in the day of need of the consumer of bread, they do say this, that so far as the internal price of wheat is concerned, when you take wheat from the farmer at SI .25 a bushel to make it into bread in Canada and when you are selling the wheat abroad at $1.55 a bushel, you are asking wheat farmers to subsidize the consumer of bread in this country to the extent of thirty cents a bushel on between forty and fifty million bushels of
wheat. That' amounts to a subsidy by the farmers of this country to the bread-eaters of this country of from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000.
The farmer says this, that if the price of his fuel oil and gasoline is to rise two cents a gallon and the price of his farm implements by 12Vo per cent, that policy of the farmer subsidizing the bread-eater of this country is one which should be reconsidered. If we are to have cheap bread, to which the farmer has no objection, the nation as a whole should pay that subsidy to provide it and not the farmer.
In order to bear out my statement that the farmers of this country have loyally supported the policy of price stabilization and do not seek to exact the last cent out of the present difficult food situation, I should like to read to the house from a recent broadcast by Mr. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) to-day make some reference to the amount which the farmer got for his wheat following the last war. Let me first give the figures on that.
The Winnipeg market, in September, 1920, showed an average cash price for that month for wheat of S2.73j, cents a bushel. That is very fine. But by next fall, in November, 1921, the average price had dropped to S1.10J a bushel, and the farmers of western Canada, having been once bitten under that sort of system, are not going, if they can avoid it, to permit themselves to be bitten again. Let me now read what Mr. Wesson said on that point in a broadcast on April 2 of this year:
There is quite an agitation in some quarters to-day that wheat prices ought to be much higher than they are at the present time because of the acute wheat shortage. No one will disagree that higher prices could be secured under present conditions, but don't be fooled by this dangling bait that is being placed before you, because the advocates who are using so much lip-service to-day have a very different motive. They want to get back to the old order of things. The free and open market system of trading, with high sounding phrases like the inexorable law of supply and demand.
But, while the exponents of higher prices today are very eager in the interests of the farmer that he should get higher prices, you will notice that they go no further than the present time, and you know, and I know, that based on past experience, if we had no protection but the much vaunted open market system, when the supply position changed on the swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme, we could quite easily get back to the same position as in the black years of the 1930's. when wheat on this same open market went down to less than 40 cents a bushel.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I have not much time, and wish to finish reading this.
Canadian Citizenship


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: If the hon. member will permit a question-


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not that I am afraid to answer questions.


James Arthur Ross: A moment ago the hon. member pinned his faith on the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Does he not know that section 2 of that act excludes wheat entirely?


Walter Adam Tucker: We can look to the wheat board to apply this policy in regard to wheat. I made that very plain, if the hon. member had been listening.


James Horace King: The hour for public and private bills having been exhausted, the house will now revert to government orders.


John Bracken: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosthern said that I had made some reference to the price of wheat following the last war. He must have been in error because I made no such reference.


Walter Adam Tucker: I understood the hon. member to refer to the price of wheat after the last war, but if he did not, I am sorry that I said he did it in error.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 3, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin- Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When the committee rose the other night the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) had moved an amendment which I think I should now read to the committee. The hon. member moved that section 10 be amended as follows:
That the following words be added to the section as subsection 6:	"Such certificate of
citizenship shall be deemed to include a Bill of Eights as follows:
1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.
2.	Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by parliament.
3.	No one shall be required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission at any time if denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards."


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend this evening to make a formal speech in support of the amendment that you have just read. This amendment is not meant to be all-exclusive, nor is it meant to

be all-inclusive. My first suggestion is that if the Secretary of State accepts the principle of the need in this country of a bill of rights signifying what citizenship stands for, then possibly the best means whereby that result could be effected would be to set up a committee of the house. It would not take very long for that committee to meet and it would afford an opportunity to exchange ideas among the various groups in the house and thereby evolve a bill of rights which would be acceptable to all, and one which would carry into effect the highest principles of citizenship.
I realize that there are many who say that all the rights referred to in the amendment are now in effect and that there is no necessity to have a bill of rights in Canada, that the great principles of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights are part and parcel of the law of this land and that, except in war time, they have not been interfered with and therefore it is not necessary to have a bill of rights.
But may I point out that during recent years, and particularly since 1914 when the War Measures Act was passed, there has been a trend and tendency in this country to diminish and attenuate rights ordinarily comprised in citizenship, and I proposed the amendment for the purpose of having parliament determine once and for all that a stop be put to the continuance of any such tendency or trend in this land.
The citizenship bill as a whole has received support from all sides of the house, and with the exception of one provision in the bill, there has been almost unanimous support of the need for it and of its terms. I am not going to make this evening anything in the nature of a partisan speech, for I believe that this is a matter which deserves the serious consideration of all members in all parts of the house.
My appeal at the very outset is that the minister, in order to round out the work already begun by him under this citizenship bill, should complete that work now by having parliament declare once and for all the rights that are incident to citizenship in this country. Only recently, all too recently, the people of Canada have become liberty-conscious by reason of what has taken place in connection with the espionage investigation.
While at the beginning of that investigation there were those in Canada who said, "After all, what is being done can do no harm because those against whom the proceedings are being taken belong to a philosophy alien to ours", in recent days Canadians on every hand are saying. "Well, if they can do it in the case of those whose philosophy is antagonistic to

Canadian Citizenship
ours, is there any reason why the government could not do the same thing under order in council against other minorities?"
It is for that reason that the problem has become of great significance. I believe that a matter of primary importance in parliament is to assure the maximum preservation of civil liberties. We became accustomed to the diminution of those liberties during the war when rights were abridged and terminated in many cases because the survival of the nation was more important than the preservation or survival of democratic symbolism.
This citizenship bill, in order to carry out the hopes of those who have given it their support, must assure that in this country there shall be no superior class of citizenship and that citizenship shall not be based on race, creed or colour, nor shall there be any first or second-class citizenship. Let there be no mistake about this. I am unalterably opposed to any alteration or diminution of the rights of Canadian citizens by order in council independently of parliament; for history shows that if you permit the rights of a citizen to be impinged upon, regardless of who that citizen may be, every other person is a step nearer to the loss of his rights, since infringements upon democratic rights have no limits except in the limitations imposed by the vigilance of the people. History proves, too, that when minority rights are interfered with, or when the prerogative rights of individuals are invaded, it is not long before few dare to conform but to the desires of the majority, and often those who exact oppression on minorities are themselves the first victims. Liberty is not something that can be purchased for all time. There are not several kinds of liberty; there is only one liberty, namely, the liberty based on law and under law.
I have said that lately there has been a definite trend away from the principles of liberty. The War Measures Act remains on the statute books of this country. So long as it is on the statute books there is no reason why governments, if they so choose, might not create emergencies real or apprehended, thereby permitting them to commit arbitrary acts under its powers.
This parliament should endeavour to assure that never again, excepting by parliament, shall the rights of individuals be reduced or entirely done away with. In connection with the order in council which dealt with the espionage problem, the right of habeas corpus was done away with as directly as though the order in council so provided, because that order in council stated that every person held, regardless of the circumstances under which he was held, was deemed to be under lawful 63260-83
arrest. I am going to refer to one or two sections of these great bulwarks of liberty of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act and the Bill of Rights, and leave it to the committee to appreciate the extent to which these rights have been interfered with in the recent order in council.
So far as Magna Charta is concerned article 40 states:
To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny, or delay right or justice.
One has only to recall what took place a few short weeks ago when men were denied the right to present their cases, were held without charge against them and were denied the opportunity of having counsel during the proceedings of the investigation to realize that these rights have been denied.
Then there is the Petition of Right. That petition of 1628 provided one thing more importantly than anything else, namely, that no one should be held unless there was against him a charge known to law. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was entirely removed by the order in council passed in October last, and that removal became part of the law of this land under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, although in passing that act parliament thought it was passing an act in regard to economic matters instead of matters respecting the liberty of the subject.
Finally there is the Bill of Rights of 1689. It contains certain principles there that are applicable to this discussion. They were condemned at that time, and yet they were adopted in 1945 and 1946. One of them reads as follows:
That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.
I have already pointed out what was done in reference to habeas corpus by the executive. The Bill of Rights states in part:
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of law's by regal authority as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal.
That the commission for erecting the lay court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious.
Furthermore, it sets out that every man shall receive his right to his day in court and without unnecessary delay.
As I said a moment ago, I did not state that the Bill of Rights as set forth in the amendment is all-exclusive or all-inclusive. In paragraph 7 it asks for a declaration that:
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.

Canadian Citizenship


Mr. FULTON:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words to-night in connection with this act defining citizenship. Before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to say how happy I am to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). We have here a man who has never lost sight of that greatest attribute of true Canadianism which is liberty, and who has never missed an opportunity of defending that very principle with all his might.
It might be well to state, at the very outset, why the certificate of citizenship should grant certain inalienable rights. This bill, as we all know, would create and define a status of Canadian citizenship. Is not liberty the most important condition of such a status? We have though it fit to fight for the defence of our liberty and now we surely think fit to defend that same right in the council of the nation. I say without exaggerating that our new citizens do not fully understand the rights and privileges granted them when they acquire citizenship. Therefore, if we create the Cana-
Canadian Citizenship

dian citizenship, would it not be advisable to complete our task by giving a definite meaning to this status, so that a Canadian may not simply say, "I am a Canadian citizen", but also, "I am a free man and here are my rights!"
What worries me, Mr. Chairman, is that not only are Canadian citizens not sufficiently aware of their rights, but a government craving for power has seriously encroached upon them. During the last few years, we have witnessed an ever-growing threat to our liberties and our civil rights. This is more than ever the time when we should unite and eliminate this threat.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to make the following suggestion to the committee:	If the bill under discussion defines the status of Canadian citizens, we should now adopt the measure which is its logical consequence, that of defining, establishing and guaranteeing once and for all the rights which such status implies. And only by the passage of a Bill of Rights determining the rights of the citizens, will this purpose be achieved.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre it seems to me that one of the first requisites would be to devote some thought to the question of why it is necessary to attach a definition of the rights of citizenship to a certificate conferring citizenship.
Among all the authorities I can do no better than look to the words of the minister who moved the bill, and in whose name it stands. I believe if we compare his statements when he moved the introduction of the bill at the last session with those he made at this session we shall see what might be described as a progression to the point where the minister himself is in support of the position now adopted by the hon. member for Lake Centre. .
Last fall, in moving for leave to introduce, the minister said as reported at page 1335 of Hansard:
It should not be concluded from this that the bill in reality makes any sweeping change or that there has not previously been any such thing as Canadian nationali ty.
Then, again, on the same page:
It is the intention of the government to undertake an extensive revision of the present Naturalization Act in terms of Canadian citizenship. By this I mean that the bill I am introducing is in reality a comprehensive amendment of the Naturalization Act in which, to avoid the old sources of confusion, all definitions, conditions and qualifications are in terms of a general status of "Canadian citizen."

In other words, in effect what the minister said then was that this bill is really not accomplishing anything new. It is merely the definition of an already existing status. However, at this session the minister has made it clear that the object of the bill is to define the fundamental status on which the rights and duties of Canadians will depend.
At page 504 of Hansard for this session the minister is reported to have said:
Generally speaking, by this bill we are seeking to make the status of Canadian citizenship the paramount national status of persons who are Canadians.
We have all agreed that one of the reasons this bill should be supported is that we in Canada need a consciousness of citizenship. The minister's second position, the position implied in the words I have just read, seems to be the most logical, and the one which best defines the object we have in mind in moving the amendment, namely that in this bill we intend to create a status. There is no purpose unless that status has some meaning, unless it has some effect and some results.
Canadians must now know what are their rights when they become citizens. Again I turn for authority to the words of the minister when at page 505 of Hansard he said:
We should want, therefore, to impress upon new Canadians whom we shall welcome and want to share in our national endeavours that they are joining no mean society but a society that will give them freedom and an opportunity perhaps that they have not had in other lands.
We have always regarded ourselves as free men. We have taken it for granted that ours is a heritage of freedom. Ours is the proud attribute of those who can say, "We are free, and no man can impose on our rights unless we consent." That surely is one of the greatest possible attributes of Canadian citizenship. That is one which should be definite and secured to any Canadian when he becomes a citizen.
What we are saying, in effect, is that the time has now come, and that it can no longer be put off, when these rights shall be defined and shall be guaranteed forever. It may be asked why we say that that time has now come. It has been shown by the hon. member for Lake Centre that the reason lies in the fact that Canadians have been losing their freedom. Under the aegis of this Liberal government, whether by accident or by design, freedom has been abrogated steadily over the period of the last few years.
It is not only in the war-time measures that this process has continued; it has been carried on since the termination of both the European and the Japanese wars. A brief examination of this process will suffice to support that

Canadian Citizenship
statement. But before I review the process there is something else first to be said. Numerous references have been made in this debate to the effect that questions of constitutional principles and freedoms are discussed very generally by lawyers. In fact it has been said that this is nothing but legal quibbling. I am a lawyer and proud of being one,, but it is not primarily as a lawyer that I speak to-night. I speak only as one who has been forced by the confusion of circumstances and political tradition to put off the following of the pursuit of law, to take part in what he conceived to be a struggle to preserve his liberty, and to preserve the right to follow that pursuit when and how he might wish. So speaking, there is no suggestion that there should be attributed to him as an individual any particular merit because hundreds of thousands of other Canadians have been in exactly the same position.
It is our belief that now that the struggle is over, now that the men who took part in it have returned to the street, now that Canadian men have returned to the Canadian scene, they should be entitled to speak for liberty. We believe that the average Canadian wishes to know what are his rights, how they are endangered and how he may protect them. We believe he is anxious now, as is shown by the press comments over the past few months, that having fought a war to preserve his liberty, that liberty should not be twitched from his back like a garment under the guise of clothing the federal executive which is already amply enough clothed. It is because we believe that the Canadian people are entitled to have defined for them in simple terms what are their rights and to understand the purpose of those rights that we speak to-night in support of this bill of rights.
As Mr. Winston Churchill said, "this is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish on impregnable rocks the right of the individual, and it is a war to revive the stature of man." It seems to me that we -would be found wanting now if, after the war is over, we were not to speak on behalf of liberty.
As I have said, the first reason for our supporting the bill of rights is that we think it is time the rights of Canadian citizens were defined in plain language and, second, that we think it is time that the loss of those rights, that the further whittling away of those rights be made impossible and that they should be restored in full and preserved forever. We feel strongly that the second ground justifies us in the stand we have taken. As I have said, if we review the history of the past few years we find support for our belief that those rights have been jeopardized.
I should like to trace in -brief outline the recent growth of the oppression of the individual and the inroads which have been made upon constitutional safeguards. It is necessary to mention only three specific cases, because these three cases provide a compendium of the whole regrettable process.
First we have legislation by order in coumeil instead of by parliament. Parliament was pre

pared to surrender certain of its prerogative controls over governmental activities during: war time for the sake of expedition in carrying: out war measures. But it is significant to note-how rapidly advantage was taken of thatt initial surrender to multiply and broaden the controls and to instal controllers and other officials with powers quite as wide and in some cases even wider than those of the cabinet to whom the authority was originally delegated.
I can cite one regulation of the wartime prices and trade board, a regulation not an order in council, in which there are nine consecutive paragraphs where the ancient principle, which is perhaps one of the fundamental safeguards of the Canadian citizen, the principle that an accused man is innocent until he is proved guilty, is reversed. This series of provisions was apparently inserted for no other reason than to make easier the tasks of the board's investigators. As a result, every merchant has become suspect. He has but to have a charge preferred against him; he has but to have the finger of suspicion pointed at him by a government investigator to have the onus placed upon him of proving his innocence and of having it made necessary for him to bring forth details of his every acf>-it may be as far back as 1939-and to show that that act was an innocent act, was not an act which would involve him in guilt, instead of the position being that the investigator who makes the charge has to prove that some specific act falls within the category of the guilt alleged.
This may not seem to be a serious matter. But what it is doing is taking away from the Canadian citizen the right which he has enjoyed for hundreds of years, and placing him in the position of frequently being found guilty merely because he is suspect; not because a case is proved against him, but because he cannot prove his innocence.
Then we have the second instance of the iniquitous order in council that appointed an investigator to inquire into the Eldorado mines. Could there be any more deliberate attack on personal and property rights than this order in council which gives, not only to the commissioner appointed thereunder but to any investigator to whom he chooses to delegate his power, the right to enter, the right to search,
Canadian Citizenship

the right to seizure and confinement, the right to force a way into premises in order to confine property, books, accounts and papers. Section 4 of that order in council which was passed on September 5, 1945, after the end of both the Japanese and European wars, reads:
4. Any such investigator may authorize in writing under his hand any lloyal Canadian Mounted Police officer or constable, or any police officer or constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, together with any other person named in such writing, to enter and search, if necessary by force, any building, receptacle or place, for books, records, documents or things which may contain or give information required for the purposes of the said inquiry, and to seize any books, records, documents or things and carry them before the investigator or such other person as any such investigator may direct, to be held for the purposes of the said inquiry.
Then, as though their powers were not wide enough, it was provided that, however erroneous their suspicion, however malicious their interference with persons or property and however damaging might be the consequence, physically or financially, of their activities, nevertheless the commissioner and his delegates were to be preserved above and beyond the reach of that law which, according to the provisions, they were empowered to break. Section 8 reads as follows:
8. No such investigator shall be responsible at law for anything done by him in good faith in the performance or purported performance of his duties as such investigator and no action 5sha.ll be taken against any such investigator in respect of the performance or purported performance or the non-performance of his duties *as such investigator.
Reading that order in council it is easy If or one to see how the lust for power feeds on power and breeds contempt for ordinary and constitutional processes and for the established courts of the land. It is as though the minister, not satisfied with his own powers, would not rest until all his delegates were made dictators in their own right.
Finally we come to the secret and dread order in council passed on October 6 of last year. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length on this particular order or on the iniquities which followed. That has already been done by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The significant thing for the moment is the spectacle of a government, emboldened by its apparent success with each succeeding breach in the fort of constitutional freedom, indulging in the defence which it has made of its actions in thus gorging itself with power.
It is this feature of the trend which we have been discussing which has determined us in concluding that not another moment

can be lost before making this effort to regain the lost ground and to preserve our rights to freedom by putting under it the sure and firm foundation of this bill of rights, defined in terms which the common man can understand and so that the common man may be able to know when those rights are placed in jeopardy. It may be said by some that perhaps such a written bill is not in the British tradition. We may be asked if we would have this government adopt the whole of the United States constitution. These questions can be faced confidently, and to those who may be inclined to raise them we would say it is well to recall that the United States constitution was written and the United States bill of rights adopted, one in the course of, and the other at the close of a long and bitter struggle against a cruel and oppressive tyranny.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I thought the hon. member was going to speak of something that happened in this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will talk in a few
minutes about something that happened in this country if the minister will restrain his impatience. Those words were used, Mr. Chairman, because it is evident on reading the history of the American revolution how the denial by King George III of the constitutional and traditional rights enjoyed by his British subjects in England to his subjects in America did constitute to those lovers of freedom a cruel and bitter tyranny. The same rights were at stake then as are at stake here: the right of the individual to habeas corpus, the right of every man not to be arrested and imprisoned without charge and without benefit of counsel and not to be questioned without a full and fair trial, and not to be transported or molested in his person save as a result of that trial. The denial of these rights is the subject of some of the most bitter and burning documents which form the history of the American colonies' struggle for independence. In fact it was the denial of these rights which led those free men to take a step which so many of them detested and which led them to the final irrevocable act of revolution. This was how they felt about freedom. It was these same men who, fresh from that struggle and still burning with the same intensity which moved them to embark on it, wrote into the pages of history that magnificent bill of rights which was to guarantee for their posterity the continuation of the constitution of freedom which they had founded before they started the struggle. We in Canada have not had that struggle. We have not had to fight

Canadian Citizenship
for our freedom within the country because as a result of the American revolution those in power in England were fortunately wise enough to see that the denial of civil rights and liberties could never again take place. Surely in this significant fact, lies the great reason whj'' we Canadians have so far allowed this trend of the loss of our liberty to continue unchecked. Not having had the passionate struggle, we are not so quick to appreciate that the fruits of victory are being withdrawn.
I appreciate that the ministers opposite are anxious that we should come to grips with perhaps the crux of this matter, that is, particular features of their own administration wherein they have been guilty of these things that we have alleged against them. It is perhaps strange that a government should be so anxious to receive criticism. I shall not hesitate to point out the significant parallel between the action of the British parliament and British ministers and the action of our own ministers here. But before doing so, inasmuch as I am trying to make a case in support of the adoption in Canada of a bill of rights I am going to ask even this government to listen to some of the arguments which were advanced by those who felt that a bill of rights should form part of the United States constitution.
Very much the same arguments were advanced against the incorporation of the bill of rights into the United States constitution as have been advanced against the incorporation of a bill of rights into a statute of this parliament. I should like to quote from the arguments made by the one who was perhaps more responsible than any other for the declaration of American independence and did more than any other to secure the passage and incorporation of their bill of rights. His arguments are so cogent and so pertinent to the situation which now confronts this country that I am going to ask the house to listen to them. I regret that it is necessary to repeat them at some length, but the ministers will see their pertinence, I' think, if they will but listen.
It was argued against the necessity of a bill of rights that the rights in question were reserved by the manner in which the federal powers were granted. Jefferson's answer was this:
The constitutive act may certainly be framed so as to need no declaration of rights. Ihe act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes; and if it goes to all material points, nothing more is wanting. . . . But in a constitutive act, which leaves some precious articles unnoticed and raises implications against others,
a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our federal constitution.
Secondly, it was argued against a bill of rights that experience proves the inefficiency of a bill of rights. Jefferson's answer was:
True. But though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference in the inconveniencies which attend a declaration of rights, and those that attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the declaration are that it may cramp government in its useful exertions. But the evils of this are short-lived, trivial, and reparable. The inconveniences of a want of a declaration are permanent, afflicting, and irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse. The executive in our government is not the sole, it is scarcely the principal, object of my jealousy. The tyranny of the legislatures-
Mark those words:
The tryanny of the legislatures is the more formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period.
It is surely obvious that that period has arrived and that the tyranny of the executive is now being seen in its most dread form.
In conclusion, I come to the question which the Minister of Labour was most anxious for me to discuss, how this is related to what is going on in this country to-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope that my hon. friend is not referring to me as a tyrannical person. Just take a look at me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think I shall do the Minister of Labour that honour at present, although I am not able to look into the recesses of his mind and I would not guarantee that he has not some such trait.
The parallel to which I referred between the American revolution and the present situation in Canada is significant. The American subjects of the then British parliament did not fail to draw to its attention in strong and dignified terms the denials of freedom that were being imposed, as they thought, in the name of the king by his ministers, nor did they hesitate to disclose what the effect of a continuation of these injustices would be. But the king was obsessed by his own power and his ministers dared not oppose him. His only answer was to repeat his actions and to follow injustice with ignominious contempt for the protestations of its victims. Surely the answers which have been given by our ministers in recent days are in very much the same tradition. Their answer is not only a dismissal of the attack, but a blunt and
Canadian Citizenship

plain statement that, were the conditions to repeat themselves, so would the actions be repeated. That is what the Minister of Reconstruction said in so many words during the last session with reference to the Eldorado order in council. At page 2260 of Hansard of last session the Minister of Reconstruction, when taxed with the unconstitutional aspect of the procedure, replying to the member for Lake Centre, said:
My hon. friend can make the most of it; he can be as forensic as he likes. Nevertheless vve have done what we believed to-day it was necessary to do.
And again:
Perhaps the court will agree with the hon. member that we are acting ultra vires; perhaps not; but in any event, if I had to do it again I would do exactly the same thing.
In other words, the minister has stated there, in so many words, that no matter what the courts of the land may say with regard to his actions, he will pay no attention but will repeat his actions as often as the circumstances are repeated. It is in the record, and his words were echoed by the Minister of Justice in the course of this session. I would have preferred, and I believe the people of the country would have preferred, to hear the minister use rather the words of the elder Pitt in dealing with very similar circumstances when a commoner of England was on trial for acts inimical to the country. Pitt said on that occasion:
My lords, for my own part, I consider this individual merely and indifferently as an English subject, possessed of certain rights which the laws have given him and which the laws alone can take from him. I am moved neither by his private vices, nor by his public merits. In his person, though he were the worst, I contend for the safety and security of the best; and God forbid, my lords, that there should be a power in this country of measuring the civil rights of the subject by his moral character or by any other rule than the fixed laws of the land!
It is because we see that principle departed from, and because we feel so strongly that the rights of individuals must be determined in accordance with the fixed laws of the land, that we have moved this amendment to have the rights of the subject defined and guaranteed for all time in Canada in this bill of rights.


Mr. LESAGE:: The premises of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops, to which we have listened for over an hour, may be summed up, I think, in a very few words which were spoken the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre at page 1146 of Hansard:

The British North America Act contains no personal safeguards against unwise or discriminatory legislation that might be passed by federal governments.
I submit that what the hon. member said there is an admission that his amendment is wrongly proposed in a bill concerning Canadian citizenship. If the Canadian constitution does not contain sufficient personal safeguards, I suggest that the right move to be taken by the hon. members for Lake Centre and Kamloops would be to propose necessary amendments to the British North America Act and not to a Canadian citizenship bill.
The bill of rights of the United States, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act and the Bill of Rights in England are part of the constitutions, respectively, of those countries. It is true that in England the three acts I have mentioned form a written part of the constitution, which for the most part is unwritten. As I have already said, if the hon. gentlemen consider that the constitution does not give sufficient personal safeguards to the citizens they should introduce an amendment to the British North America Act and not to this citizenship bill. Let us see what is designated by the pompous words "bill of rights" used by my hon. friends. I quote:
1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.
2.	Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by parliament.
3.	No one shall be required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission at any time if denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards.
They are very pompous words-bill of rights-for these few points. Are these the only rights pertaining to Canadian citizenship? What about all the other rights of Canadian citizenship as guaranteed by the constitution, by our own laws? They will not be deemed to be included in the certificate of citizenship? Why omit them? I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman. It is because this amendment is only a political move to try to embarrass the government with things of the past. Hon. members opposite have not lost an opportunity since this parliament met for the first time last year to talk about orders in council. I should have liked to have them sitting on this side of the house just to see what they would have done in the same circumstances when the safety of the state was in danger. I should have liked to see them here, but the people did not like to have them here, and therefore sent them to the other side.
What about the other rights that are guaranteed to us by our constitution, and what about minority rights? Why should they not be deemed to form part of the certificate

Canadian Citizenship
of citizenship? What about minorities? It is all very well to talk, as the hon. member for Lake Centre did, about the rights of minorities, but should not a large part of the majority cease ignoring the rights of minorities? It is about time. Last year in a speech I delivered I gave a few examples of the way in which our rights were ignored by the majority. What is the proportion of civil servants of French origin now in the civil service of Canada? That is not only an example, it is ample evidence, of the ignoring of the rights of minorities.


An hon. MEMBER:: By your government.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: It is not the government but the heads of the civil service and I should like to have an inquiry made. But it is done by a part of the majority. I do not say that all the majority refuse to recognize the rights of minorities, but too many of them do; and unless all the rights of every citizen in Canada are respected, and particularly those of the minority, there cannot possibly be any unity in Canada. I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops particularly to devote to this question the same amount of effort he gave to the study of French in order to be able not only to deliver an excellent speech in French, no, a speech in excellent French, but to try to convince some of his friends of the rights of the minority, as I know he understands them.
Unity in Canada is much more important than the manner in which some of the rights of citizens were mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre in a political speech. It is much more important to deal with Canadian unity in this house than writh party politics and I ask the members of the majority to try to understand the feelings and the convictions of the minority. We are here in Canada the minority, and the general opinion of the minority is that there should be a greater amount of autonomy for Canada in the British commonwealth of nations. That is the general opinion.
We have no sentiment outside Canada. We are simply attached to our beloved country and our king, the king of Canada and not the king of any other country. I do not blame anyone, but I quite understand that a great number of the majority have sentiments toward another country. I do not deny them that right; far from it; but I would ask them, when we are discussing in this house the interests of Canada, to be good enough, for the sake of Canadian unity, not to give us arguments in support of the interests of any other country.
I shall give the committee an example. During the course of the discussion on the
financial agreement with Great Britain too many members said that it was going to help Great Britain. I am stating cold facts now. Too many members said that. It had an immediate reaction on a great part of the minority who said: "Oh, they are doing this to help Britain; it is not in the interest of Canada." That is a fact which actually happened. The cause of it was a sentiment expressed by the majority, which brought about another kind of sentiment from the minority, and it was a natural reaction. So long as there is sentimentality on the part either of the majority or of the minority there will never be Canadian unity. There will never be Canadian unity until we get together and talk over matters in terms of Canadian interests only. I think that is our duty. We of the minority are on the dividing line. We ask you to meet us half-way because we are waiting for you with our arms outstretched.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. HANSELL:: I am glad that your eye was this way, Mr. Chairman, in order that I might follow the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet, not that I agree with his speech but I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed, namely, that if we are to have a bill of rights let us have it in the right place. It would be a mistake for the people of Canada to assume that their bill of rights was composed of three small sections hidden away in the citizenship bill. I was simply going to agree with my hon. friend in that respect and say that the time has now come when a real bill of rights should be presented. It could work side by side with the citizenship bill, but that is neither here nor there. If we are to have a citizenship bill let us have a real one and let us put it in its proper place.


Thomas John Bentley: I wish to ask a question before the amendment is put. I want the committee to understand that I am 'asking for information on a legal matter. It has no bias or political intent to it, but I want the answer from somebody who may be competent to give it. If this amendment carries and Canada becomes involved in a war, would this amending section prevent the War Measures Act from authorizing the government to act by order in council as it did in connection with the spy cases?


Mr. MARTIN:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to deal with his question later. At this time I wish to state the position of the government with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre. May I first of all say to him that as
Canadian Citizenship

I listened to his speech, while I could not agree with all of his conclusions, I could not help feeling that I was justified to-night in telling him that I compliment him in large measure on the spirit which prompted him to make the proposal, although for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Maeleod I cannot agree to accept it.
Before dealing with the hon. member, may I say that I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops who argued tonight that the liberties of citizens are sacred. He protests against certain orders in council which, he says, infringe on the rights of citizenship. He says that this was an awful thing to have done. I wonder if I may suggest to the hon. member that his language tonight is, in the light of his language on other occasions, difficult to understand and hardly consistent, to say the least; for it seems from his statements thus far in this and in other debates that if orders in council suit his purpose he is all in favour of them. I refer to a statement he made at page 624 of Hansard, which reads as follows;
The authorities for the orders in council themselves are contained actually in the War Measures Act and, since the first of this year, in the Emergency Powers Act. Most of the criticisms directed against the government for its policy are that this deportation is proposed to be carried out under order in council. It is represented to us that such a procedure is a horrible state of affairs; that to deprive people of their citizenship-that is the way it is put-by order in council is a hideous crime. I submit to hon. members that this is not a true picture. Most of the people affected are not citizens of Canada; that is the first thing.
And so on. He does not argue the merits of the case at all in the quotation to which I have just made reference. He discharges his conscience with the remark that most of the Japanese are not citizens. His words are clear and must leave upon us the implication that those who are can suffer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is entitled to draw his own conclusion.
Mr. MARTIN; I refer again to another statement of the hon. member on the same page-


Mr. GREEN:: I suggest to the minister that he read a little farther on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At page 624 the hon.
member said:
That being the case, there is nothing horrible, new or deceitful in passing these orders in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should read what came before that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am making my speech now. He continued:
As I say, I feel that the reason is important to point this matter out is, to some extent, to combat the wave of hysteria and ill-considered agitation which is sweeping the country against these orders in council.
Surely these statements speak for themselves. The hon. member cannot be right to-night and be right on the occasions when he looked upon Canadian citizenship in the manner in which these two quotations suggest.


Humphrey Mitchell: How long ago was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I now come to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He has raised a matter that, as the minister responsible for this bill, I could not let pass without making some comment and stating at the outset the reasons why I am going to say I cannot accept it.
It should be pointed out first of all that the substance of the proposed amendment is already the law of this land. The matters to which he refers in abbreviated form are basic in the common law, in Magna Charta and in the Bill of Rights, which are the law of this country. These are basic legal concepts and are part of the law of Canada. They lie in the foundation of our whole legal system.
The amendment would provide no guarantees that do not now exist. No act of parliament can limit the action of future parliaments. The power of the governor in council cannot, under the law as it now stands, infringe any of the rights referred to in the amendment. Therefore any future infringements can only be under authority granted by parliament. We much hope that no such authority will ever be granted, but the point to note- and I call it to the attention of the hon. gentleman-is that no guarantee by action here will add anything to the guarantees that now exist. The only way whereby greater guarantees could be given than we now have would be by an organic law that could not be changed by the Canadian parliament. Let us examine the problem as stated by the hon. member. The type of organic law that would be necessary does not exist in our system, which is the British system. It is true that the United States constitution contains in its initial paragraphs a statement which might be called a bill of rights, but I would point out to the committee-and I am not saying this to be in any way disrespectful to a great and friendly power-that this document is an instrument of revolution. It begins with the following words:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with

Canadian Citizenship
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a declaration of independence on the part of the American people, which they rightly regard as an important historical document; but it is, as I repeat, a testament of revolution as well as a statement of grievances and of rights. A bill of rights for the Canadian people, as such, of course must differ widely both in concept and in implementation. It is true that in France they, too, have in their constitution a bill of rights, but it is an act which in no way deals with the matter of national status, but rather with the whole matter of civil liberties as con-cevied by the law of France. But I point out that only such organic laws which limit the capacity of the legislature or of parliament to act provide protection along the lines contemplated in the amendment. There are these famous words of Tennyson, which I think apply to this situation. Referring to Great Britain he said:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom slowly broadens dewn From precedent to precedent.
That is the character of our system, the system I had in mind in using the words that appear in section 26 of the bill. That is the system which says it is not possible at any given moment to cover the whole ambit of future civil liberties, or even those liberties as they exist at the moment, in such a way that we may not lose any of their implications or endanger possible future important liberties. The best way to deal with them is the way they have been dealt with in our legal system within the commonwealth, by recognizing that these great unwritten powers are as effective in the implicit understandings of the law, rather than being set down categorically in the form of a completely written constitution. But the methods of protection of the individual under our system, based upon British constitutional tradition, are of a different order. The protection under our system depends upon two things: first, the guarantees provided by the common law and set forth in part in Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights; and second, the fundamental democratic tradition and the British operation of parliament itself. Those are the guarantees relied upon in our system, which the government believes to be the best way of guaranteeing the rights and freedom of the subject; for the fact is that while France, the United States and other countries have embedded in their constitutions specific bills
of rights, I do not think we, as countries within the commonwealth, need take second place to any country in the world in the protection that historically and indeed currently is afforded to the subject. This was stated by one of the great French commentators on constitutional law, Professor Boutmy, who in his "Studies in Constitutional Law" at page 48 said:
The French have sought for securities against change in giving jjrominenee. splendour, and dignity to their constitutional documents. The English have found this security in the vagueness of custom, in the retiring and commonplace character of ordinary law, and in leaving their constitution without a name in the midst of a crowd of statutes. Each system has its theoretical advantages and disadvantages. When the balance is struck between the two, experience seems to pronounce in favour of the Enelish system.
Apart altogether from the merits one way or another of the particular amendment, we cannot easily discard the impressive record of history in favour of the British system, as opposed to the continental system, as it is described by Main in his famous book. So that I say these are the guarantees that are relied upon in our system, which have stood the test of time; and if abuse does exist-I am not saying that it does or does not, because the merits of the particular grievance have nothing to do with this debate-the remedy lies not in adopting a course which other countries have found useful for themselves, but in following the course we have decided is best, by leaving these implicit both in the statute and in the common law. These have proved to be the most lasting and effective guarantees of human liberty the world has ever known, and I do not think we would or could gain anything by changing this basis unless we wish to swing over completely to guarantees through organic legislation of the type relied upon by other countries.
But supposing we do wish to change it. If we wished to go over to the organic law approach, certainly this is not the place to do it, as the hon. member for Macleod has said. In the first place, any such change would be a fundamental constitutional departure which should not be done in a subsection of a section which prescribes conditions for the issue of certificates; for even certificates of naturalization, while they have tremendous value, do not deal with the wide problem suggested in the hon. gentleman's amendment. If this house desired to make this change, should it not be done on the basis of a bill by itself, when all aspects could be considered and all the implications noted, a bill which would be the result of mature and care-
Canadian Citizenship

ful judgment? This parliament has ratified the charter of the united nations to which in general form are attached the kind of liberties which civilized men the world over want to see subscribed to and guaranteed in so far as that can be done by the new united nations organization. This parliament and this country are not remiss in their faith and belief in those great principles, only some of which have been outlined in the amendment, which are guaranteed and have been guaranteed for centuries by our courts and our system of government in a manner which I think can stand up against any kind of completely written system in any other part of the world.
Another point that has been forgotten by . the hon. gentleman in this amendment is that it raises questions of provincial jurisdiction. The substance of the amendment deals primarily with matters of civil rights. These are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In certain aspects the points concerned might come into the field of federal jurisdiction, but only to a very limited extent having in mind the particular subjects enumerated. So that there are provincial espects of the question which would have to be considered, and these should be examined with great care before any such action is taken.
But there is another great weakness in the amendment. I would point out that the guarantees contemplated in the hon. gentleman's amendment would attach to certificates of naturalization. In other words, they would go to naturalized persons but not to natural-born Canadians. Surely this is a mistaken approach. Surely a bill of rights, a statement of civil liberties, which deals with only one group of citizens and ignores the vast majority of the Canadian family can hardly be said to be an effective statement of civil liberties.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are being very technical there, are you not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just dealing with the hon. member's amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But you are being very technical.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a very technical matter.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will you permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am speaking for the sake of accuracy. The minister began by citing what one might call the

preamble to the United States constitution. If my memory of history is not altogether off the line, the bill of rights became part of that at least two years later. So that in effect the preamble to the constitution had no effect whatsoever, because the bill of rights was an amendment to that constitution. Is that right, historically.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes. Then, of course, the preamble had nothing to do with the bill of rights which came in some years later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course what the hon. member has said is historically true. But I do not see how it affects what I said. What I have said is that there are two techniques in the realm of political science by which civil rights are guaranteed. One is the system which seeks to codify those rights, and the other is the system which leaves them unrecited, in part, and leaves them to the protection of institutions of government, including the judicial process as well as to other arms of government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister permit another question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our experience has been- by "our" experience, I mean the system in common law countries-in common law-countries within the British commonwealth that that system has been more effective in guaranteeing the liberty of the subject than any other system. That is the point I had in mind when I sought to indicate the differences between our technique, the non-written or partly written constitution, one relying upon the effectiveness of parliament, rather than leaving it to those who, at a given moment, seek to cover the whole ambit of human liberties.
I pointed out that the amendment ignores the vast majority of Canadian citizens, in that it deals only with naturalized Canadians, and I suggest, of course, that this is a mistaken approach. But if the clause would add any protection-and I am convinced it would not -then that protection should go to all citizens. It should not be for naturalized citizens only.
I have suggested that the amendment deals with too important a matter to allow it to become a subject for debate in an ad hoc way, with wide possibilities for misunderstanding. I have mentioned several reasons why the amendment should not be attached to the bill, and I would list them as follows:
(1)	It simply restates what is already the law of the land.

Canadian Citizenship
(2)	It would not, in reality, add any new guarantee, nor would it strengthen any existing guarantee.
(3)	It would be a fundamental departure from British constitutional approach.
(4)	There are aspects of provincial jurisdiction that would have to be given careful consideration in connection with such a matter.
(5)	As now presented, the amendment would purport to extend guarantees to naturalized persons over and above those that apply for natural-born Canadians.
(6)	Finally, a matter of such fundamental importance calls for specific action and, if desired-which I deny-for special legislation. A subsection in a bill of this nature, admittedly an important bill, is no place, as the hon. member for Macleod has said, to deal with a matter that has to do exclusively with the whole field of civil liberties, and not with the one aspect, namely that of the Canadian national status.
On balance, therefore, I feel that the suggestion. while it has been of value in putting forward what is in the hon. member's mind, and while it points to a matter of which we must continue to be aware, if democracy is to survive, cannot be accepted. It would be a mistake, in my judgment, to press the amendment in its present form.
There is no question that a bill involving national status is not a place to incorporate what .the hon. member has proposed. But I would point out to him that, assuming otherwise, does he for a moment think he has dealt with those civil liberties which are now protected by our system? He has enumerated a few. What about the many others? The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet mentioned a minute ago one aspect of the problem of Canadian civil liberties not included in the amendment.
One might mention a whole series of liberties now guaranteed by our courts, now implicit in our constitution in this country and throughout the commonwealth, and in other common law countries. They are not enumerated in the amendment offered by the hon. member.
Therefore I say that while in one respect he has perhaps rendered the committee a service, for which I commend him-although I am not admitting his whole argument was relative to the principle of the bill-I must say for the reasons I have given his amendment cannot be accepted.
If, however, he doubts the power of what I am saying with regard to the force of leaving these rights implicit in the law, rather than trying to incorporate them exclusively in a written document, perhaps the committee will permit me to quote one of the greatest
authorities on the constitution of British countries, that- great and liberal-minded man, Edmund Burke, who made the following remarks in his famous speech on American Conciliation:
As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have; the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This is the commodity of price of which you have the monopoly. Deny them this participation of freedom and you break that sole bond which originally made and must still preserve the unity of the empire. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, your affidavits and your sufferances, your dockets and your clearances are what form the great securities of your commerce. Do not dream that your letters of office, and your instructions, and your suspending clauses are the things that hold together the great contexture of the mysterious whole. These things do not make your government. Dead instruments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the English communion that gives all their life and efficacy to them. It is the spirit of the English constitution which, infused through the mighty mass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the empire, even down to the minutest member.
Is it not the same virtue which does everything for us here in England? Do you imagine then that it is the Land Tax Act which raises your revenue, that it is the annual vote in the committee of supply which gives you your army ? Or that it is the mutiny bill which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely no! It is the love of the people, it is their attachment to their government, from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives you your army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience, without which your army would be a base rabble, and your navy nothing but rotten timber.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Burke has stated the value of our technique, and I think he has given us a reason for continuing it, and for not meeting the proposal of the hon. member.
This bill of ours, to which the hon. gentleman has given such great commendation, about to be adopted by all sides of the house, seeks to establish in this country as the paramount status of Canadians the status of Canadian citizenship. It recognizes at the same time their common attachment to a common king. The bill seeks to deal with one important aspect, that of national status. This is not the kind of bill under which to deal with a matter involving something, that is apart from the particular incidents and the particular purposes of the bill.
Canadian Citizenship

For this and these other reasons I say to the hon. gentleman I cannot accept the amendment. Assuming the method to be desirable, I do not believe this is the place to incorporate the proposal. I do not for a moment agree that the technique suggested is the way to deal with the matter. I say to the hon. gentleman again that we now have in our own law, and have had for centuries, the most effective means of dealing with the problem he has in mind.
Let us then pass this bill, seeking as it does to create what he and the house agree must be created, a feeling of common unity in this country. Let us deal with first matters first. Let us recognize that the great task before us is in this fundamental act of creating something that will give all of us the right to say with pride and with meaning, "I am a Canadian citizen."


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with much of what my hon. friend has said I am in agreement. He has quoted from Burke and he has told of the traditional liberties of the British peoples. He says that we have safeguards here in Canada which will ensure those liberties without a declaration by parliament at this time. He dealt with the unwritten British constitution and the benefits of an unwritten constitution. However, we in Canada have a written constitution, with the exception of those rights which he has referred to so eloquently this evening. I agree with him that so long as the subject has recourse to the courts, so long freedom and liberty will be maintained.
But have we those rights? Have we the right of recourse to the courts when it is denied under order in council? The right of habeas corpus was denied in 1945 under order in council. Where are those prerogative rights which were gained by centuries of sacrifice on the part of British peoples? Where were they in December, 1945, and January, 1946?
I am not going to enter into an argument with him as to whether this bill is the proper medium to have embodied these rights in order to ensure them, but I assert that oratory does not answer the conditions that have prevailed in this country in recent months. I quote, not from Burke of 1790 but from a Liberal newspaper of May, 1946, in regard to how liberty is being maintained in this country. I bring as witness into this house an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 1, 1946, which deals with the situation and answers my hon. friend in words which I could not hope to equal or emulate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is where I got the quotation from Burke.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to say is that my hon. friend did not quote from the issue of May 1, 1946. The editorial is entitled "Star chamber methods". I am not going to name the individual whose case is referred to, but these are the words:
These are not methods of obtaining information from persons suspected of a crime which can be in any respect justified under British common law. But they arg the methods of a police state. They are the methods of a country where individual liberty and individual rights are denied; where they are subject to the caprice and temper of a state which is prepared to reduce its citizens to slavery in order that its will might prevail.
They are methods, in short, which are intolerable in Canada, and which must not be employed by the government.
That is the advice of a Liberal newspaper to the government of this country and is an answer to my hon. friend. My hon. friend pointed out how the traditional rights of Magna Charta would protect individuals in this country against acts of the crown. Here is what the Free Press says in that regard:
The basic legal rights of an individual under Magna Charta must be honoured by a government which, for all its virtues, has been strangely lax in this respect.
Strangely lax. Apparently my hon. friend has not been following some of the orders in council, or he would not have been able to deliver the address which he did this evening as a member of a government that has been so unmindful of personal rights. Let me go on to the next quotation:
The Minister of Justice must recognize that it is one of his most important duties to defend these rights, rather than to destroy them.
Those are the words of a Liberal press to the Minister of Justice who in his position as Minister of Justice has on occasion gone contrary to the principles which he avowed with such vehemence when he was president of the Canadian bar association.


Mr. FRASER:: Let him laugh that off.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That is all you can do about it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the attitude; laugh it off. That has been the attitude on the part of the government. That was the attitude of the Minister of Reconstruction when he used the words referred to a while ago by the hon. member for Kamloops. That was the attitude of the government in the

Canadian Citizenship
speech delivered by the Minister of Finance in regard to the unresponsibility of the executive to parliament. I read on:
What was true in this case was true in the case of almost all the defendants in the current espionage trials.
My hon. friend spoke of the practice in Great Britain. Did anything like this ever happen in Great Britain? Was there ever a case where rights under the constitution were swept aside as they have been here? The editorial continues:
Contrary to all practice under British common law, they were held incommunicado to the point where they could contact neither their lawyers nor their families.
Mark these words as an answer to the words uttered this evening by my hon. friend:
They were subjected to star chamber methods that have been abhorrent to democratic peoples for four hundred years.
If I had used those words they would have been called partisan. Canada owes much to the press of this country. The press, regardless of political persuasion, has said to this government that it has gone too far and a halt must be called.
That is why the amendment was placed before the house. We say to the government in the amendment that it has gone far enough; that it has denied habeas corpus and defied democratic principles. The constitution and the unwritten rights of English common law have not been sufficient to protect the rights of the subject. Therefore parliament must speak.
Finally I quote the last paragraph of this editorial:
These trials in so far as the preliminary investigations are concerned will be held by future generations as a dark episode in the history of the development of Canadian democracy.
Why did I introduce the amendment? In order to carry out the last two lines of that editorial, which reads:
The public and parliament must see to it that they do not recur.
That is what parliament is for. Are we forever to sit here and allow invasions to take place of the rights of the subject such as have occurred in recent months and recent years? I am not going into detail, but as my hon. friend has raised the whole question I ask, what about the extradition agreement with the United States? It has not been brought before parliament yet because there were too many members of this parliament who were averse to the attitude taken by the government of making Canadian subjects
subject to forty-nine laws in the American union, the laws of forty-eight states and of the federal congress. What about the use of the Emergency Powers Act? Parliament gave those powers to the government for economic reasons and the government used them to keep concealed the order in council of last October. The minister stated that they were passed under a secret order in council.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Could we discuss citizenship for a change, Mr. Chairman?


John George Diefenbaker: That is citizenship, the right to those rights which my hon. friend has described so well, the right of recourse to the courts which has been denied over and over again during recent years. Have deputy ministers the right to govern the courts of this land? Let me quote from a letter that I received while I sat here this evening, in which counsel for the Department of National Revenue, in connection with charges laid in Saskatoon last week for infractions of the Income Tax Act, received instructions as follows:
The action must not be withdrawn unless on instructions from this office under the conditions imposed at that time, and under no circumstances must a delinquent be committed to gaol unless on written instructions of the deputy minister.
I know that hon. gentlemen opposite say that rights are protected because there is recourse to the courts. But that recourse was taken away under the order in council mentioned. That recourse is taken away under many income tax regulations, and we have finally arrived at the stage in this country where deputy ministers issue instructions to a magistrate:	You shall not impose any
imprisonment without the consent of the deputy minister. Surely those great principles enunciated by my hon. friend should be lived up to in this country. That is the reason for the introduction of this amendment: to bring to the attention of the house the necessity of mobilizing opinion in this house to the end, in the words of the Winnipeg Free Press, that never again will recur in this country the denial of democratic rights; never again will the right to have counsel be denied; never again will individuals be denied that precious right of habeas corpus, without which there can be no freedom.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege-Mr. Probe
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 8, 1946.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege affecting the carrying out of the obligations of 'hon. members who may be acting on special committees appointed by the House of Commons. This morning there appeared in the Ottawa Journal this little screed under the headline: "Answer for member cost $4,000 to get":
The war expenditures committee of the Commons-charged with watching for unnecessary expenses-was told Thursday


James Horace King: Order. Is .the question of privilege raised by the hon. member based on i report made with respect to something which lappened in a committee?


William Irvine: No.


John Oliver Probe: This is a report of the Ottawa Journal of this morning based on the activities of the special war expenditures committee.


James Horace King: Order. The proper place for the hon. member to raise his question of privilege is in the committee. We could not hear the hon. member in this house on what happened in committee, because we have before the house no report from the committee.
Mr. COI.DWELL: May I speak to a point of order? As I understand it, the hon. member is bringing up a matter affecting the privileges of a member of this house, and whether it appears in a reflection upon a committee set up by this house or not, it seems to me that the hon. member has the right to raise a question of privilege affecting himself at any time. I think the hon. member should be allowed to proceed.


John Oliver Probe: May I refer Your Honour to citations 192 and 198 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which cover this point most specifically. I continue:
The war expenditures committee of the Commons-charged with watching for unnecessary expenses-was told Thursday one of its own questions to the army had cost about $4,000 for an answer.
Chairman Gordon Isnor (L-Halifax) gave that estimate as the three-inch thick reply was tabled for Captain John Probe (C.C.F.-Regina City).


James Horace King: Order. It is against the rules of the house to quote from newspapers.


Gordon Graydon: Not on a question of privilege.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, no.


John Oliver Probe: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Mr. Speaker is on his feet; sit down.


James Horace King: If the question of privilege is based on an article which appeared in a newspaper, I would ask the hon. member not to quote the article, as it is forbidden by paragraph 306, Beauchesne, second edition, but to state his question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: He has to read the article.


John Oliver Probe: The obvious aspersion in this report is that a committee examining economies is itself asking questions that require huge expenditures of public money to answer. The facts as stated to the committee yesterday by the director of ordnance services, army, are that no additional help was employed by the army to provide the answer then requested, and was in effect-


James Horace King: Order. I do not see any question of privilege in what the hon. member has said. If there is any conflict between what happened in the special committee and what was reported in the newspaper, I would ask him to make the protest before the committee.


John Oliver Probe: In paragraph 198 of Beauchesne's rules and forms the rule is explicit concerning tihe special committee of the House of Commons.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry, but I have given a ruling and the hon. member must accept it.



INCOME TAX


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a
statement arising out of some remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as recorded at page 1315 of Hansard. The hon. .member quoted from a letter he had received pertaining to charges laid in Saskatchewan last week for infractions of the income tax laws. The quotation was as follows:
The action must not be withdrawn unless on instructions from this office under the conditions imposed at that time, and under no circumstances must a delinquent be committed to gaol unless on written instructions of the deputy minister.
The hon. member has entirely misinterpreted the law. The situation-

Income Tax


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Joseph McCann: -may be described as
follows.


Gordon Graydon: Is this a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker? The minister has no rights at all.


James Joseph McCann: Taxpayers in various parts of Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I rise to a point of order. A few moments ago we had a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, and now we have a minister of the crown standing up and violating that very ruling. We want t-o know whether this is a question of privilege, and what is the question of privilege. The minister has no right to make a speech.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Listen to it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, I have listened to you so long I am tired.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not asked permission to speak on a question of privilege. I asked permission to make a statement in order to clarify a situation which in my judgment has been misinterpreted, in order that this matter might be cleared up for the benefit of the public throughout the country.


Gordon Graydon: May I just raise this point, so that we may be perfectly in order in respect to a discussion of this kind. With great deference to the minister and to yourself, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a question which must come up in the ordinary debate on the citizenship bill, since the matter was brought up during that debate. The ministerial powers which the government are taking upon themselves to make statements in the house at various times are getting quite beyond the rules, and I do not believe they should be allowed to continue.


James Horace King: The ruling I gave a few moments ago on a question of privilege applies to ministers just as it applies to other members of the house-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: -but the house will
admit that it has been the practice at the opening of a sitting to hear statements by ministers of the crown.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Order, please. I must hear the minister first in order to see whether or not it is a question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: He says it is not.


James Horace King: Or whether it is a statement which should be allowed. Hon. members will agree that before giving a ruling the Speaker must hear what the minister or member has to say.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to help the Speaker maintain the dignity and decorum of this house. The)' may be assured that I will give justice to both sides.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In order to help you maintain the decorum of this house, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member please to resume his seat.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, I have the right to rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have the right to rise to a point of order. May I state my point?


James Horace King: There is no point of order before the house just now. I have said that I will hear the minister first to'see whether or not he is in order in making the statement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I object to any rule which stops me from rising to a point of order during debate in this house. I rise to a point qf order, which is my privilege as a member of this house. The minister has stated-


James Horace King: Order. I have already told the hon. member that there is no point of order before the house just now. The hon. gentleman may be sure that if he wishes to rise to a point of order later, I shall be very happy to hear him.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, when the minister has done what he wants to do, when he has his statement in the papers. I rise to a point of order now, as is my privilege.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the cooperation of the hon. member. He will understand that if the rulings of the Speaker are not respected, we shall not have any decorum, dignity or order in this house. I would ask him please to keep his seat, and he may be sure that if the minister is not entitled to make this statement he will be stopped in due course.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, the rulings of the Chair must be supported by the house.


James Horace King: I have already said there is no point of order before the house, so no hon. member should rise to a point of order. The minister has the floor.
Income Tax


James Joseph McCann: I have not contended, Mr. Speaker, nor do I now contend, that this is a matter of personal privilege, because my name as minister was not mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre. But it has been the custom of the house when an important matter, such as I contend this is, has to be dealt with, that a minister is allowed to make a statement. As a matter of fact on many occasions the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has been given the opportunity of making a statement. I would say that when I have completed my statement the very people-


John Bracken: I was never given the right to answer questions raised during debate in this house, at a time when my statement could not be debated.


James Joseph McCann: I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion when the statement has been made the very people who have objected to it will be glad it has been made in order to clarify a matter which has been the subject not only of criticism here by the hon. member for Lake Centre but of criticism and objection on the part of many people throughout the country.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Mr. Speaker, will anybody be allowed to reply to the minister?


James Joseph McCann: In order that there may be continuity to what I say, I shall start again. The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted from a letter which he had received-


James Horace King: Order. It was announced yesterday by the hon. leader of the house that Bill No. 7 would be considered this afternoon, so I believe the hon, minister will have an opportunity to discuss the matter when that order is called later to-day.


James Joseph McCann: I am quite agreeable to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I would draw the attention of the hon. member who raised a question of privilege a few moments ago to Beauchesne, second edition, paragraph 306, which states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters, or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
I hope both sides of the house will now proceed to business.


Mr. STIRLING:: On a point of order, would Your Honour be good enough to tell the house by what rule a minister can rise in his place and make a statement dealing with something pertaining to a debate? It

has been stated more than once this afternoon that it has become a custom. I quite agree that it has, but I should like to know under what rule such a custom could have developed.


James Horace King: I would answer the hon. member by saying that there is a very well known rule to be found in the rules and forms of the house which states that Mr. Speaker should not be consulted from the floor of the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1946. By leave of the house I move:
That the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 61, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the present act the maximum number of claims that a person may stake in the same mining district within a period of twenty days is three. It also prevents the proper grouping of claims and prohibits a prospector from protecting an original discovery from encroachment by others. Many representations have been made to the department that the act be amended to allow, as in the province of British Columbia, a prospector to locate a limit of seven claims personally or by attorney in a twelve month period within a distance of ten miles of the original claim, thus permitting him to locate in all eight mineral claims. Sections 1 and 2 of the bill make provision for this.
Section 3 of the bill provides for the grouping of claims.
Section 4 of the bill adds a new section to provide permanent legislation in the place of the order in council passed under the War Measures Act exempting members of the naval, military or air forces from the provi-

Placer Mining
sions of the act respecting forfeiture for nonperformance of work or non-payment of assessments or rentals.
Sections 6 and 7 of the bill are changes which are necessary in order that the schedules may agree with the proposed new section 53.
Mr. ADAMSON:: Are the claims of the same size?


Mr. GLEN:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PLACER MINING


[Stage Direction]
PERSONNEL-SMUGGLING	(
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 62, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
He said: It is proposed that section 1 of the bill be added to the act in order to give the governor in council power to make regulations exempting members of His Majesty's air, naval and military forces from the provisions of this act respecting forfeiture for non-performance of work, on claims held by them at the time of their enlistment under this act, instead of having to rely on the authority of the War Measures Act. If this proposed amendment and a similar amendment to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act are passed, order in council P.C. 3136 of October 18, 1939 may be revoked upon the making of regulations under this section.
The necessity for the legislation set out in section 2 of the bill arises by reason of improvement in transportation facilities in the Yukon territory. It is now possible to leave the territory by one of several routes. This fact has increased the chances of successfully smuggling gold out of the territory. During the past three years there have been several instances in which gold has been so smuggled. The controller of the Yukon Territory and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have asked that the act be amended to strengthen their hands in preventing this evasion of the law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and
Resources) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 63, respecting the boundaries of certain national parks.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to make minor adjustments in the boundaries of certain national parks to include small areas that have been acquired for park purposes, and in some instances to exclude small areas which surveys have disclosed are no longer required. The national parks to which areas are being added are Banff park, Riding Mountain park, Point Pelee park, Georgian Bay Islands parks and St. Lawrence Islands parks. In the case of Banff park and Riding Mountain park, two small areas have been excluded.
Provision is also being made for establishment of the legal boundary of Kootenay national park as a result of a legal survey having been made setting up the actual boundary of this park.
Mr. CHURCH:: We would like to know about the boundaries of some of the parks in Ontario. We have none there. Ontario has been forgotten.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FEEDING STUFFS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 64, to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1937.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GARDINER:: This is an amendment having to do with the establishment of the weight of feed which is in bags when it is sold. This question has been up for some time and people have insisted on the weight of the feed being on the bag.


Thomas Langton Church: In the absence of the hon. member for Temiscouata, who is interested, I hope that this does not mean that there will be any more new poisonous gin put on the market.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Gordon Knapman Fraser: What educational bodies in Ontario bought, or received, from the War Assets Corporation, equipment suitable for educational and instructional training purposes?
Questions

Mr. MelLRAITH: The following educational bodies in Ontario have bought equipment and material from War Assets Corporation:
Alberta College, Belleville; Arthur Voaden Vocational School, St. Thomas; H. B. Beal Technical and Commercial High School, London; Brantford Board of Education; College du Sacre Coeur, Sudbury; Guelph Collegiate and Vocational Institute; Kirkland Lake Collegiate and Vocational Institute; Kingston Collegiate and Vocational School; London Board of Education; Maple Leaf School, North York; McMaster University; Canadian Vocational Training for Ontario Schools; Les Oblats de l'Universite d'Ottawa; Ontario Agricultural College; Ontario Department of Education; Ontario Veterinary College; Ottawa Public School Board; Queen's University, Kingston; Pelham Continuation School, Fenwick; Ramsay Township School Area Board, Almonte; Regiopolis College, Kingston; St. Catharines Board of Education; St. Mary's Collegiate Institute; Sarnia Collegiate Institute and Technical School; Toronto Board of Education; Toronto University; Welland High and Vocational School; Westdale Technical School, Hamilton; Western Ontario University, London; Weston Board of Education; St. Patrick's College, Ottawa.
The following educational bodies in Ontario have received, from War Assets Corporation, equipment suitable for educational and instructional training purposes under the policy of indefinite loan:
Ontario Department of Education, Sault Ste. Marie Technical and Commercial High School, Toronto Board of Education, Ottawa Technical High School, Ottawa Public School Board, Kitchener and Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School, Kitchener, Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School, Queen's University, Kingston, University of Western Ontario, London, Hamilton Board of Education, Kitchener and Waterloo High School Board, Collegiate and Vocational Institute, Board of the Township of Teck, Kirkland Lake, Guelph Board of Education, Galt Board of Education, Fort William Vocational School, Chatham Board of Education, Brantford Collegiate Institute and Vocational School, Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education, St. Thomas Board of Education, St. Catharines Collegiate and Vocational School, Sarnia Board of Education, Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute, Collegiate Institute Board of Ottawa, North Bay Collegiate Institute Board, Port Arthur Technical School, Board of Education for City of Peterborough, F. R. Close Technical Institute, Hamilton, Welland

High and Vocational School, Weston Collegiate and Vocational School, H. B. Beal Commercial and Technical High School, London, Windsor-Walkerville Vocational School, Windsor, Brantford Board of Education, City of Oshawa Board of Education, Western Technical Commercial School, Toronto, Board of Education, Vocational School, Chatham, Amprior High School, University of Toronto, Arthur Voaden Vocational School, St. Thomas, Kingston Collegiate and Vocational School, Collegiate-Vocational Institute, Niagara Falls, Stratford Normal School, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, McMaster University, Hamilton, Regiopolis College, Kingston, Kingston Municipal . Board of Education, Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School.


DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION-DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, MONTREAL
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has the Civil Service Commission called for applications for the position of district superintendent in the Department of Reconstruction, grade 4. at Montreal?
2.	If so (a) on what date: (b) at whose request was such position opened?
3.	Was it advertised as bilingual?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by 1.


MOBILIZATION ACT-PERSONNEL AT PRESENT IN SERVICE
John George Diefenbaker: How many X.K.M.A. men are at this date (a) in uniform in Canada; (b) overseas; (c) on extended leave?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: (a) 10,452 (as of 15th
April, 1946); (b) 3,342 (as of 15th April, 1946) including 96 in territories adjacent to Canada; (c) 1,905 (as of 15th April, 1946).


DESERTERS
John George Diefenbaker: How many army personnel, by provinces, are listed at this date as (a) deserters; (b) absent without leave?


Hugues Lapointe: A soldier may be absent without leave for a period varying from a few hours up to 21 days, after which time he is considered to be a deserter. Particulars are not maintained of absences of less than 21 days' duration.
Statistics are maintained by districts of enlistment of army personnel over 21 days absent who are struck off strength as a result af a court of inquiry on the illegal absence.

Questions
These figures are as follows:
BY DISTRICTS OP ENLISTMENT AS OP APRIL 30, 1946 Military District
1 			 867
2 			 1,515
3 			 509
4 			 6.855
5 			 3,468
6 			 196
7 			 314
10 			 686
11 			 529
12 			 304
13 			 403
Total	 15,646


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUILDING, SASKATOON
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	Is the federal department of agriculture constructing a building for the use of that department at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the cost of this building and for what purpose will it be used?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


REVIEW OF COURT MARTIAL SENTENCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many sentences of imprisonment passed by court martial on service men were reviewed by the committee or commission headed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Keiller McKay?
2.	In how many cases reviewed were sentences (a) reduced; (b) remitted; (c) full pardon granted?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The total number of cases reviewed by court martial board of review was 1,895. There is no statistical information available to show the review breakdown between sentences of
* imprisonment and detention.
2.	(a) and (b). In military phraseology the terms "reduced" and "remitted" have the same meaning. In 1,730 cases remission of a portion of the sentence was recommended by court martial board of review; (c) the board had no power to grant full pardon.
WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED^-CONSTRUCTION OP HOUSES AT BRANTFORD


Mr. CHARLTON:: 1.	How many houses were built or are under construction at Brantford, Ontario, by Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	What was the cost of fa) land; (b) underground services; (c) roadways; (d) construction; (e) materials; (f) administration?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1. Built: 394 houses, 3 staff houses.
Under construction and practically complete: 6 houses.
2. (a) $20,349.71; (b) $150,452.10; (c) $21,299.49; (d) and (e) $1,577,342.11; (f) $671,835.31.
Note-the above five amounts are as of March 31, 1946. Item (f) includes operation of the houses.


VICTORY LOANS-EMPLOYMENT OF WILLIAM ROBERTS
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Was William Roberts of Timmins, Ontario, employed by the federal government, or by the victory loan committee in connection with the last four victory loans?
2.	If so (a) in what capacity; (b) at what rate of remuneration?
3.	What total amount did he receive for his services ?
4.	What total amount did he receive for expenses ?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Chairman of unit public relations committee; (b) On a voluntary basis. His services were loaned to the national war finance committee by his employer, Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd.
3.	Nil.
4.	$155.45 for expenses incurred in connection with the seventh, eighth and ninth victory loans.


EXPENDITURES OF BRITAIN IN CANADA
Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the statement of the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 766 of Hansard of April 11. 1946,
1.	On what basis did he arrive at calculating
"the lower expenditures of Britain here" in 1947 ?	. .
2.	By "expenditures of Britain here ' in 1947, did he mean Canadian exports to Britain?
3.	How' did he figure out that they will be lower?
4.	What -will the prospective "expenditures of Britain here" or the Canadian exports to Britain be in 1947?
5.	Referring to his following statement, how did he calculate "a higher" level of British exports to Canada in 1947?
6.	What will they be (a) in 1946 and; (b) in 1947?
7.	What will cause the 1947 level to be higher
than that of 1946?	_
8.	What goods are expected to be shipped
from Britain to Canada in larger quantity in 1947 than in 1946?	.
9.	What goods are expected to be shipped from Canada to Britain in smaller quantity in 1947 than in 1946?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	By discussion with the British authorities.
2.	Yes, chiefly payments for goods exported from Canada to Britain but also payments for certain freight and shipping services, interest and dividends on British investments owned by Canadians, certain war services (in
Questions

1946 and earlier years), and certain other minor items such as the cost of British government representation and British travel expenditures in Canada.
3.	This conclusion was arrived at by a joint examination by British and Canadian authorities of Britain's probable purchasing programme in Canada and Canada's probable ability to supply what Britain might desire to purchase. It is of course only an estimate.
4.	United Kingdom expenditures in Canada during 1946 were estimated at S875 to $925 million, including $750 to $800 million for Canadian goods exported to that country. It is impossible to make a satisfactory estimate beyond the present year, but on the basis of the joint examination by British and Canadian authorities, United Kingdom expenditures in Canada during 1947 may be 10 to 15 per cent less than during 1946.
5.	The British authorities stated that as they completed the process of converting their economy from a wartime to a peacetime basis and of diverting their manpower from the production of military goods to the production of civilian goods, they would be able to increase their exports to Canada as well as to other countries. These representations were accepted as reasonable by Canadian authorities. Actually British exports have been increasing encouragingly in recent months. The acute shortages of certain types of commodities in the Canadian as in most other markets should assure a demand for an increased volume of imports from Britain.
6.	Imports from the United Kingdom may be of the order of $140,000,000 in 1946. It would seem not unreasonable to assume that they might increase in 1947 by as much as 20 to 30 per cent. In addition Canadians will make payments to the United Kingdom on account of freight, interest and dividends, etc., amounting to approximately $175 million during 1946.
7.	Chiefly, an increase in the production of British goods for export purposes, based on the greater utilization of manpower, materials and plant facilities for the production of civilian goods for export; and, on the demand side, a condition of shortage in Canada for many types of commodities.
8.	The more important examples will probably be woollen and worsted yams and fabrics, cotton yarns and fabrics, pottery and chinaware, glass and coal, though the United Kingdom expects to be able to bring about a general increase in volume of exports.
9.	Mainly food items. It is reasonable to assume that somewhat smaller quantities of food will be available for export from Canada during 1947 for various reasons, including

greater consumption at home, and reduced stocks (for example, of wheat). In addition Canada may ship larger quantities of food to countries other than the United Kingdom as other trade channels are restored.


TRAINING OF TEXTILE OPERATORS
Mr. ISNOR:: Is the government financially assisting by part time pay, or otherwise, in training textile operators such as (a) garment makers; (b) garment cutters; (c) pressmen; (d) leather coat stitchers; (e) machine operators?


Humphrey Mitchell: The dominion government has authorized training-on-the-job for ex-service persons in the following occupations: (a) garment makers; (b) garment cutters; (c) press men; (e) machine operators.
There is no specific record of (d) leather coat stitchers being trained on the job, but. there are ex-service persons training under that scheme in the classifications of leather goods workers and leather coat workers.
The plan under which the government is assisting the above mentioned veterans is known as the "training-on-the-job" plan. During the period of training, a wage is agreed on, partly paid by the employer and partly by the dominion government. The proportion paid by each is adjusted from time to time, with the employer increasing his share as the trainee becomes more skilled.


TRADE OR APPRENTICE SCHOOLS
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is the government of Canada, through the Department of Labour, conducting any trade or apprentice schools for (a) carpenters; (b) plumbers; (c) bricklayers; (d) electricians; (e) painters; (f) plasterers; (g) glazers; (h) sheet metal workers; (i) steamfitters?


Humphrey Mitchell: The government of Canada, in cooperation with the various provinces, is conducting apprenticeship schools for the following trades: (a) carpenters; (b) plumbers; (c) bricklayers; (d) electricians; (e) painters; (f) plasterers; (g) glaziers (included in painting course); (h) sheet metal workers; (i) steamfitters.
Schools are being conducted in all the above trades in all provinces except Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, although there is no apprenticeship act, classes are being held for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, and sheet metal workers.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-CONSTITUENCY OF PROVENCHER
Mr. JUTRAS:: 1.	How many soldiers settled under the Soldier Settlement Act after the last war in the electoral constituency of Provencher?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
2.	How many of those have clear title to their farm ?
3.	How many had to give up their land?
4.	What is the average equity of those who are still indebted to the board?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that the hon. member has received the information and wishes this question to be dropped.
Question dropped.


HYTHE, ALBERTA, RURAL MAIL ROUTE
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Has the post office department called for tenders for the carrying of mail on the proposed rural route out of Hythe, Alberta?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken by the department to establish this route?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes, in November 1945.
2.	No tenders were received, and matter is being left in abeyance pending receipt of a reasonable offer for the performance of the proposed service.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN DAUPHIN CONSTITUENCY
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many persons residing within the electoral district of Dauphin are on the regular payroll of the federal government?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	What are in each case their (a) duties; (b) salaries; (c) date of appointment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the hon. member would consider allowing this matter to stand, and perhaps I could discuss it with him? The reason I deal with the matter in this way is that to answer the question will involve a great deal of work. If the question is allowed in this particular case there would be no reason why it should not be extended to others. It may be possible to give the hon. gentleman what he wants in a manner that will not take up so much time of the commission staff which is heavily engaged at the moment.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Were any vessels repaired under E.R.A. contracts by (a) the Atlantic Spring and Machine Company, Limited; (b) Pushie's Machine Shop, Sydney, Nova Scotia, during the period from October 1, 1943, to November 1, 1945?
2.	If so, what are the names of such vessels and the amounts paid the abovementioned concerns for these repairs?


DOCTOR DAVID SHUGAR
Mr. DORION:: 1.	On what date did Dr. David Shugar enter the civil service?
2.	What was his previous occupation?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	What was his occupation at the end of January, 1946?
5.	What was his occupation on and after March 13, 1946?
6.	Did he pass any civil service examination?
7.	Did the Civil Service Commission advertise the position filled by Dr. Shugar?
8.	If so, how were such advertisements made?
9.	If not, for what reason?
10.	Were applications received from other persons for the position later filled by Dr. David Shugar? If so, from whom?
11.	Is he a Canadian by birth or naturalization?
12.	If by naturalization, on what date did he obtain his certificate?
13.	What were his qualifications?
14.	Did anyone previously fill the position which he had on or after March 13, 1946?
15.	If so, who, and when did such position become vacant?
16.	If not, when was such position created?
Mr. MARTIN; Return tabled.


DESERTIONS-ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions of army personnel, by provinces, have taken place (a) from January 1, 1945, to January 1, 1946; (b) from Janu- ' ary 1, 1946 to date, for (i) desertion; (ii) absence without leave?
2.	In how many cases, by provinces, were the penalties imposed (a) penitentiary sentences; (b) jail sentences; (c) fines, for the commission of each of said offences?



CIVILIAN CORPS OF CANADIAN FIRE FIGHTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNIGHT;
1.	Are members of the civilian corps of Canadian fire fighters liable for income tax on pay received while serving overseas?
2.	Was any part of such tax deducted at the source at the time such pay was issued?
3.	If not, why was it not deducted at the source ?
4.	Has income tax on such wages or pay been now paid by any members of the fire fighters corps ?

Mr. LOW:: What is the total of rentals paid by the federal government for offices in the city of Edmonton during the period September 1, 1939 to March 31, 1945?	.



L. W. MOFFIT

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to Mr. L. W. Moffit. civil service examiner:
1.	What are his antecedents and what did he do before being appointed to the Civil Service Commission?
British Forces in Egypt

2.	(a) Was lie granted leave from his departmental work as civil service examiner, and (b) does he still occupy his office at the Civil Service Commission (Harris-Campbell building) ?
3.	Was he authorized to do an entirely different work from that of a civil service examiner and if so (a) from when, and (b) what is it?
4.	Is he still being paid a3 civil service examiner for doing that different work and, if so, how much?
5.	Did he receive anything for travelling or living expenses since the date above referred to, and if so, how much?
6.	Since the date above referred to, was he allowed to have the services of one or several stenographers and typists and, if so, who were they ?
7.	Has he been allowed to use government stationery for liis work?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION OFFICES IN EUROPE

Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What Canadian government or other Canadian immigration offices were in operation in Europe before the war?
2.	What was the cost of operations of each of these offices for the last complete year of operation?
3.	What offices in Europe are still in operation ?
4.	What offices have been closed?
5.	What steps are being taken to reopen these offices?



FARM LOANS

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	How many applications for loans have been received by the Canadian Farm Loan Board since January 1, 1946. for each province?
2.	By provinces, how many of these loans have been approved?
3.	By provinces, how many of these loans have been actually paid out by the board during the same period?
4.	Have any special directives been issued by any government member or official, regarding the making of loans in Saskatchewan?
5.	If so, what was the text of such directives?



RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed by the federal government in the Riding Mountain national park?
2.	What are their (a) duties; (b) salaries?
3.	What is the date of appointment of each employee and the period for which the appointment was made?



GOVERNMENT COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the operation and financing of government companies, to define their status as agents to His Majesty, and to provide further for the superannuation, pension or other rights of the employees of such companies.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a matter of considerable concern to Canada. It arises out of a discussion yesterday in the House of Commons of Great Britain which centered around the announcement of the withdrawal entirely of all British forces from Egypt, which indirectly might weaken the control over the Suez canal as a commonwealth trade route. During the discussions Prime Minister Attlee is reported to have said that this decision was agreed to by the dominion prime ministers. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Did the Prime Minister and this government agree to this decision and, if so, what were the underlying reasons for doing so?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: First of all, let me make it perfectly clear that I have not seen the report to which my hon. friend refers, and anything I say must therefore be based on the assumption that the report is correct. My hon. friend said that during the discussion Prime Minister Attlee is reported to have said that this decision was agreed to by the dominion prime ministers; that the discussion centred around the government announcement which proposed the withdrawal entirely of all British forces from Egypt, which indirectly might weaken the control over the Suez canal as a commonwealth trade route.
If Prime Minister Attlee made the statement that the decision was agreed to by the dominion prime ministers, I presume that the prime ministers to whom Prime Minister Attlee was referring would be the prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, all of whom are especially interested in the Suez canal route. So far as Canada is concerned, I should like to say that we have not offered any advice whatever to the United Kingdom government on any aspect of these

India-High Commissioner
discussions with the Egyptian government, nor have we been a party to any decision such as the one referred to by my hon. friend.


John Bracken: Would the Prime Minister care to have a copy of the report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wanted to make the position clear for the record. I am not questioning my hon. friend's point; I am protecting both him and myself in the matter of what has come across as a report. We have not the full text of the Prime Minister's announcement, and it is possible he may have indicated who the prime ministers were to whom he was referring as having approved the decision. My hon.'friend's question related to Canada. I say) that as far as Canada is concerned, neither have we been asked for nor have we given any advice on that question. We have not been a party to the decision.


John Bracken: I can give the Prime Minister the report upon which my question was based, if he desires it. However, I think he has answered the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps this little discussion between my hon. friend and myself will help to illustrate the value of adhering to one' of the rules in regard to questions. My hon. friend's question, in part, seems to relate more to the giving of information to the house than to seeking an answer to a question. All my hon. friend needed to have asked was whether it is correct that the Canadian government had agreed to this particular decision. I have just said to my hon. friend that I was trying to protect him and myself; I was not agreeing that Prime Minister Attlee had made the statement or that the statement itself is correct. Someone has been kind enough to hand me this moment a copy of the Ottawa Evening Journal of this afternoon, and the heading in broad type is, "Dominions not asked to agree on Egypt. Attlee apologizes for giving house wrong impression."


John Bracken: In order that the record may be further clarified, may I say that what I said was that Prime Minister Attlee was reported to have said that this decision was agreed to by the dominion prime ministers.


Thomas Langton Church: Perhaps the Prime Minister will table all the correspondence on this matter, which I referred to before. Without this base and protectorate we would have lost two wars, and the British empire would be a body without arteries. They are necessary for the protection of our trade with the far east. We should have all the correspondence with Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand on this subject. I had intended to move the 63260-84
adjournment of the house on this question, because it is the most important matter we have had before us this session.



INVITATION TO EXCHANGE OF HIGH COMMISSIONERS WITH CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a question I have raised twice before in other sessions but the matter now assumes an urgency which prompts me to raise it again. In view of the fact that decisions of far-reaching consequences to Canada and the empire are being made in India, will the government even at this late date consider accepting at once the long-standing invitation of India to exchange high commissioners, so that the senior dominion in the British Commonwealth may be on the ground to observe and to give every possible help in finding a solution to the problem of self-government for India?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, here again may I draw attention to the rules of the house with respect to questions to be asked. I refer to standing order 44 and the following citation No. 349, which appears there at page 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house. A question may not contain statements of facts unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible and can be authenticated; nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or controversial or ironical expressions.
I think my hon. friend's question contravenes that rule in every particular and detail. May I say to him, however, that the government shares the hope and expectation that there will be an exchange of high commissioners between India and Canada in due course.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister's answer a year ago was just about in the same terms as it is to-day. I would ask him to be more definite with respect to the time. If there is some special reason why this matter cannot be discussed, that is another question; otherwise I think the house is entitled to a more definite statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would rather refrain from being too definite in replying to my hon. friend if for one reason only, that in his question in connection with the exchange

Coal Supplies

of high commissioners between India and Canada he stated that the purpose would be for Canada's high commissioner to "observe and to give every possible help in finding a solution to the problem of self-government of India." When we appoint a high commissioner to India from Canada, I should not think it a part of his duties to enter upon a political issue that is one of the bitterest, in some particulars, as between parties in the United Kingdom and as to which there are some differences of opinion as between Great Britain and India and within India itself.



PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE POSITIONS AS TO STOCKS AND SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Reconstruction make a statement to the house, either to-day or at an early day, on the coal situation in Canada? I believe that the matter is developing into what may be a very serious emergency, and a statement would be helpful.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The stoppage of work in the United States bituminous coal fields is having a serious effect upon the Canadian position, but owing to the fact that Canadian coal importers and industry usually carry substantial stocks, the impact of the stoppage is somewhat delayed. Imports of United States bituminous coal from April 1 to May 4 have been only 660,000 tons as against 1,015,000 tons in the same period last year. It is expected that substantial shipments will not be available from the United States for some three weeks after work is resumed in the mines. The supply position with regard to this coal is, therefore, in a serious condition.
Certain measures have already been taken by government to protect Canadian industry as far as possible. It is fortunate that many of our large industrial consumers have substantial stockpiles, and, apart from coke and gas plants, most of these large consumers have sufficient coal for two to three months' operations. Some of these industries, however, which have not established stockpiles, and have depended upon regular supplies from the coal docks, are in difficulties. Wholesalers' stocks on the coal docks are rapidly being depleted, and to protect these, a directive was issued by the coal controller on April 18 restricting supply from these stocks to thaf quantity sufficient for ten days' operation only.
The position of the coke and gas plants is causing concern, as their operation affects the householder through the supply of both gas

and coke for domestic heating. A shortage of coal supply to these plants would reduce the quantity of coke available for house heating next winter. Action has been taken by the coal controller to direct supplies of coking coal from the eastern Canada fields to Hamilton to protect the operation of the coke ovens, and to direct supplies of similar coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal for the same purpose. Further supplies will be made available for this purpose as required. The coke ovens have also been instructed to reduce as much as possible their own consumption of coke for gas-making and thus conserve this coke for domestic use next winter.
Canadian railways are protected; they have over two months' supply of coal on hand in stockpiles. It should be remembered, however, that when these piles are depleted it will be difficult to rebuild them to an adequate position.
Canadian bituminous coal is at present available from western Canada and from Nova Scotia, in some quantity, on an emergency basis, to keep industry in the central provinces in operation on a possibly reduced scale. Coal control is ready to direct shipments of these coals where needed.
In the summer, unless production is resumed in the early future, the Canadian position will be very serious, and many industries will have to restrict the scale of their operations. Canadian coal production will be used to the greatest possible extent to alleviate difficulties as they arise.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Do I understand the minister to say that there is no report on the anthracite situation at present?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, there is at present no strike in the anthracite field, but the deliveries of anthracite last year were far below Canadian requirements.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: They are worse this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And they will be worse this year. I think the house may as well know that the prospects for domestic fuel next winter are more alarming than they have been at any time during the past several years. The coal controller is attempting to meet the situation in every way possible- by increasing shipments from western Canada of coal suitable for domestic use, by conserving, all possible production of coke for domestic use, and by attempting to procure a sufficient supply of substitute fuels. But I may say that, from my own point of view, I have been alarmed about the coal situation in other years at this time of year, but I am

Canadian Citizenship
much more alarmed this year about the supply of domestic coal for next winter than I was at any time during the war years. All I can say is that the government will bend every effort to obtaining fuel for its citizens next winter.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: In view of the fact that all members have received considerable correspondence about the supply of coal in western Canada, and we are given to understand that we can supply all our needs from there, will the minister make a statement as to what is the actual situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Western coal production is increasing. New mines are being opened up, some under the sponsorship of the government. Every available miner in western Canada is being employed, and the output there is very substantial. Throughout the war years Canada has never been able to produce 50 per cent of her coal requirements from domestic mines, and will not be able to do so this year, in spite of the increased production in western Canada and in Nova Scotia.


Mr. PEARKES:: Only last week I was in the city of Nanaimo and attended a meeting of some of the miners. The great handicap to production of coal in that field is the shortage of miners. Can the-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will understand that there can be questions, but not a debate.



REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Mines and Resources whether he has yet received the report of the royal commission on coal, and if not, when he expects to receive it. If he is unable to answer to-day, perhaps he would make inquiries so that he will be in a position to inform the house to-morrow when the report will be received.


James Allison Glen: My colleague, the Minister of Reconstruction, will answer the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the question and have communicated with the royal commission on coal. I have received a reply from Mr. Justice McLaurin, as follows: Dear Mr. Howe:
With reference to a prospective inquiry in the house as to when the commission's report may be completed, in the chairman's absence from the city, I am pleased to advise that substantial progress has been made in the last month or two, but some months are bound to elapse before the work nears completion.
As you understand, a review of the coal industry is one of recognized magnitude, and the commission is now doing its best to press the work to its earliest possible conclusion.



EFFECT OF EXPORTS ON DOMESTIC SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["I would much prefer to see whether some solution could not be arrived at regarding the incorporation somewhere in the bill, either through the preamble or an amendment, embodying a statement of rights. I prefer it in the preamble. As I say, I do not want to lose the opportunity of Someone being able to move it in the preamble on account of the loss of the proposed amendment, which, if I may guess the tenor of the debate, is certain to be defeated. I would like a little more time to consider the procedure, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to call it six o'clock.\nProgress reported."]
William Irvine: I wish to ask the Minister of Reconstruction a question based on reliable information which I have just received, that in the city of Prince George, where lumber is manufactured, there is not sufficient for local use. What action, if any, does the government propose to take with a view to checking the flow of lumber exports so as to retain sufficient in Canada for home use?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy of the government has been to maintain the flow of exports to historic markets. Throughout the war years we shipped to the United Kingdom, as we are doing now, the same quantity of lumber that was shipped to England in prewar years. We are doing the same to the United States, to Australia, and one or two other markets which have been our historic outlets for a good many years. The remainder of the lumber is being distributed in Canada. The proportion is about three-fifths for Canadian consumption and about two-fifths for export to historic markets. The distribution of the Canadian portion within Canada is organized on the basis of 1941 consumption, which we think is about as fair a method as can be devised, and every community in Canada is receiving its quota of lumber based on its consumption in 1941.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 7, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin- Mr. Macdonald (Brantford1 City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: When the committee
rose last night it was considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre, as follows:
That the following words be added to the section as subsection 6:	"Such certificate of
citizenship shall be deemed to include a Bill of Rights as follows:
1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.
Canadian Citizenship

2.	Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by parliament.
3.	No one shall be required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission at any time if denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards."


James Joseph McCann: Last evening, when this bill No. 7 was being debated, the hon. member for Lake Centre appeared to convey the impression to the public that the deputy minister or the minister directly or indirectly attempted to interfere with the magistrate in the carrying out of his judicial duty. In order to correct that impression I wish to put on the record what is the procedure with reference to the collection of income tax from delinquents:	*
The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted from a letter which he had received pertaining to charges laid in Saskatchewan last week for an infraction of the income tax law. The quotation is as follows:
The action must not be withdrawn unless on instructions from this office and the conditions imposed at that time, and under no circumstances must a delinquent be committed to gaol unless on the written authority of the deputy minister.
I submit that the hon. member has entirely misinterpreted the letter. The situation in all these cases might be described as follows: Taxpayers in various parts of Canada, having failed to file their income tax returns at the prescribed statutory period, are advised of that fact by the inspector of income tax through the issuance of a normal letter advising the taxpayer that the return has not been received and that it should be filed and requesting him so to do. If this request does not bring in the return, then a further letter is sent in. accordance with section 41 of the Income War Tax Act, which, provides:
If the minister, in order to enable him to make an assessment, desires a return from the taxpayer who has not made a return, he may by registered letter demand from such person such return.
The second letter is therefore registered and becomes a formal demand under the terms of the statute. If the addressee still persists in failing to file his return, then he is informed of his breach of the law and advised that he is liable to prosecution in the courts for failure. If this third letter does not bring the required return, an affidavit is prepared of the demand having been made in accordance with the statute, a legal agent is advised to take charge of the case, and an information is laid in the local magistrate's court wherein the charge of failure to comply with the law is set forth. The case in due course comes on for trial and hearing, and if satisfactorily
[The Chairman.]
proved the magistrate imposes a fine. It is not unusual for the magistrate to state, "The fine shall be.... (say $250) and on failure to pay.... (a term of imprisonment)." Thereafter if the delinquent fails to pay the fine imposed by the court he stands in jeopardy of imprisonment. The purpose of the last paragraph quoted from the letter of instructions to our legal agent is to preclude him from taking action by way of securing a committal order to have the delinquent imprisoned without first drawing the matter to the attention of the government through the deputy minister and bringing it under consideration as to whether such action should or should not be taken. Or again, the magistrate may impose a fine and say nothing about imprisonment on failure to pay the fine. If the fine is not paid, then the delinquent stands in contempt of court and the legal agent might, in the carrying out of his duties, move for a committal order in respeict of the failure. Here again the paragraph quoted is to preclude the legal agent from taking such action without first drawing the matter to the attention of the government through the deputy minister. Hence the statement that the interpretation given by the hon. member is entirely erroneous.
No right whatsoever is taken away from the delinquent, nor could the letter be interpreted in any way as a direction to a magistrate to do this or that in the exercise of his judicial functions; quite the contrary. Whether the paragraph is worded appropriately or not, it is intended and does function to preclude such drastic action being taken without the matter being carefully considered, all the circumstances weighed, and a determination being made as to whether such action should be taken by a legal agent acting on behalf of the crown.
I think that the hon. member should not convey the impression to the public that any deputy minister, or minister, directly or indirectly, attempts to interfere with the magistrate in the carrying out of his judicial, duties. I feel quite sure that the hon. member, in the light of this statement and the explanation back of the paragraph, will be willing to admit that that is so.
Mr. DIEFENBAKEB,:	I presume the
minister's statement calls upon me to say a word. Every statement I made has now been confirmed by the minister. The case in question was heard in Saskatchewan, where, as I am informed, a taxpayer had been found guilty and the magistrate imposed the penalty of a fine and costs, and in default imprisonment. The legal agent then produced a letter of instructions advising that under no circum-

Canadian Citizenship
stances must the delinquent be committed to gaol except on the written instructions of the deputy minister. I say, sir, that no deputy minister in this country has a right, once a person is placed in the jurisdiction of a court and a penalty imposed, to decide whether or not there shall be imprisonment without his consent or approbation. To say otherwise is to open the door to the nullifying of the rule of law. The statement I made last night was in accordance with the facts. I am glad to have the corroboration of the minister setting forth these facts. I now ask the minister to see to it that henceforth, once a deputy minister or any official has instructed prosecution, from that moment on the deputy minister or any official of the department shall have no further say in the disposition of the case.


James Joseph McCann: I will admit that perhaps the paragraph has been badly worded, and that it is now

Some hon. MEMBERS') Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: Just a moment. Now that it has been brought to my attention and the matter has been given consideration it is intended to reword it to the following effect:
It is inappropriate for you (the legal agent) to take any action through the courts against the delinquent with a view to having him committed to gaol without first drawing the proposed action to the attention of this office so that the circumstances may be reviewed before such action is taken.


John George Diefenbaker: That is perfect.


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps that will meet the objection. I want to say to the committee, and to the hon. member for Lake Centre, that we are glad to have the suggestions and the cooperation of all members of the committee in order to carry out a very difficult task and to see that all people are dealt with equally before the law.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister.


Mr. BOUCHER:: May I, as one who has had five years' experience on the bench in a magistrate's court, suggest to the minister that he do not even send the letter he has now suggested. When a charge is laid in a magistrate's court based on an infringement of the revenue act, or for failure to pay income tax, the penalty is prescribed. In the course of administering justice the magistrate has authority, and almost invariably acts on that authority, to impose on a person found guilty a fine, and an alternative of imprisonment if the fine is not paid. The usual custom is to exact from the guilty person a fine or to commit him to gaol for failure to pay the
fine. It is only on rare occasions that the magistrate will agree to give a convicted person time to accumulate money to pay the fine-to go out into the country and earn the money. The result is the magistrate states that the fine must be paid immediately or a term in prison served.
If an official of the Department of National Revenue, under the instructions of the deputy minister, presents the magistrate a letter at the time of the imposition of the sentence saying that he must not commit the individual to prison without the consent of the deputy minister, he is casting a reflection upon the magistrate in the exercise of his statutory duties. When the deputy minister or any official of the department issues instructions for a prosecution he should leave it to'the courts to administer the law without suggestions or interference. If further action is taken because the magistrate has defaulted in his responsibility to collect the fine or impose a term in prison, then the department should interfere; but I do not think it would be proper or the part of discretion to issue amended instructions in this particular case, as the minister suggests. It should be left entirely to those appointed by law to administer justice without any instructions from the department.


James Joseph McCann: These instructions go to the legal agent, not to the magistrate.


George Russell Boucher: Or to the legal agent.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Now that this
incident appears to have been cleared up to the satisfaction at least of most of us, as to the propriety of giving instructions to an agent not to try to have a man committed to gaol for delinquency in paying income tax until the matter has been brought to the attention of the department, I may perhaps be permitted to try to clear up some other misconceptions which appear to have arisen in the course of this debate.
In discussing recently what has been called Canada's spy probe a magazine said that Canadian politics, always notorious for paradox, has lately developed a new one. I think the writer was rather modest and that more than one paradox has been lately developed; perhaps among the -most surprising was to hear the minister-of-justice-designate in the Conservative opposition's shadow cabinet preaching so vigorously the principles of liberalism with a small "1", but with big outbursts of oratory and of rhetoric. It sounded . strange to hear all the great freedoms for which Liberalism has always stood expounded with such accents of undying devotion: free-
Canadian Citizenship

dom of religion; freedom of assembly; respect for the rights of minorities; free access of lawyers to all possible prospective clients; free speech; free press-even, at one moment, hugging to his throbbing bosom the Winnipeg Free Press.
I am not rising to defend any departure from any of the rights and privileges of free ment but I do wish to clear up briefly some of the misapprehensions which hon. members on the other side of the house have been suggesting more than once in debates in this house, in their efforts to make it appear that this government is offending against the rights of free citizens and the rights of a free parliament. I think the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) put a pertinent question to which the Secretary of State, who had the floor at that time, deferred giving an answer. At page 1309 of Hansard the hon. member said:
I wish to ask a question before the amendment is put. I want the committee to understand that I am asking for information on a legal matter. It has no bias or political intent to it, but I want the answer from somebody who may be cqmpetent to give it. If this amendment carries and Canada becomes involved in a 'var, would this amending section prevent the War Measures Act from authorizing the government to act by order in council as it did in connection with the spy cases?
I suggest that was a pertinent question; and I suggest that the hon. member for Lake Centre and other hon. members who are lawyers know very well that the answer must be in the negative. The inclusion, of this amendment in the citizenship bill would do nothing more for the rights of citizens in this country than has been embedded in the constitution of the country ever since the treaty of Paris. Magna charta, the petition of right, the bill of settlement, habeas corpus- all are part of the common law which is embedded in the constitution of this country; and the writing of a few additional words into the text of this citizenship bill would not, and I do not think would be intended to, interfere with what might have to be done and what parliament might wish to have done by those having responsibility to it-responsibility of office and not just mere shadowy responsibility in a shadow cabinet-for the security of the country.
The War Measures Act was passed in this house in 1914. Hon. members know what party was in the majority in the house at that time, what ministry had- real responsibility at that time, and what those who had real responsibility felt it was necessary they should do to discharge their responsibility foe the security of the country. As a consequence the War Measures Act was passed in 
the second session of 1914, and has been left on the statute book ever since that date by parliaments in which there were ministries having real responsibility. I doubt whether any hon. member feeling real responsibility for government would ask that this statute be repealed. I hope, as we all hope, that it will never have to be invoked again; but until we are more certain than we can be at present of the success. of the organization set up under the name of united nations, I do not think anyone feeling real responsibility would want to remove it from the statute book.
Those principles resulting from magna eharta, from the petition of right, the bill of settlement and the habeas corpus act, are great and glorious privileges; but they are privileges which can be and which unfortunately sometimes have to be interfered with by action of parliament or action under the authority of parliament. It was for the purpose of enabling that to be done that those who had the real responsibility in 1914 proposed and had adopted by parliament the provisions of the War Measures Act. At that time there were those who felt that the act might not perhaps have the broad, sweeping effect it was intended to have. When outcries are made here about the removal of habeas corpus, hon, members seem to forget that habeas corpus was invoked against an order in council made under the War Measures Act; that the question became one of wide national interest, and that the decision given by the Supreme Court of Canada in re George Edwin Gray, reported in the 57th volume of the reports of the Supreme Court of Canada, settled for all time the controversy on that point. Mr. George Edwin Gray was not denied the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, but it was decided on the writ, that he was legally detained under the provisions of an order in council.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No one disputes that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This decision goes back to July 18, 1918. No one disputes that decision? No one disputes when it is mentioned that it happened, but many dispute the possibility of doing, without becoming a tyrant, that which was done in another case, namely, declaring that anyone detained under another order in council would be deemed to be in legal custody. Not only does the War Measures Act give authority to the governor in council to do these things which may become necessary, but those who belong to a ministry, having the real and not the shadow responsibility, feel that under that act of parliament they have not only powers but

Canadian Citizenship
duties to perform, and that responsibility for shirking those duties would be a serious matter. When parliament passed the statute it was not merely to give powers to a government; it was with confidence that the government to which those powers were being given would exercise them in such manner as the safety of the state might require. And had parliament not done that, every member of parliament would have had to feel that he himself, through his actions, had responsibility for doing those things for which, under the War Measures Act, he delegated to the members of the government in which the house had confidence and authority and responsibility of parliament.
It is all very well to say that it is a disregard of the great charters to detain or to interrogate a free man without a charge having been laid against him. I have already cited what parliament determined could be done, what was done, what was challenged, what went before the courts, and what was declared by the courts to be the things which under the statute could and should be done.
But even under the common law; all hon. members know the provisions of the common law with respect to coroners' inquests, when violent deaths are brought to the notice of the coroner. In Quebec we codify our laws. The civil code is a codification of all the private laws resulting from customs, precedents and practices. In Quebec they have codified in what is now chapter 22 of the revised statutes of 1941, section 38, a provision in regard to the exercise by the coroner of the common law power. It states:
Previous to or during the inquest the coroner shall have full power to order the detention, with or without a warrant, of any person or witness whom he may deem necessary, and who, in his opinion, may fail or refuse to be present at the inquest.


Thomas Miller Bell: Was that power also given to coroners in the rest of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the power exercised by coroners in the rest of Canada. It is the power resulting from the common law, but it does not rest on statute in the common law provinces. However in Quebec, in their effort to bring our practice into line with the practice resulting from the body of common law not codified, this is the way it was expressed. And it is well known with respect, for example, to the contention that no man should be asked before a public officer what his name is, unless he has a lawyer with him to tell him what answer he should - make.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the
minister sure he is right. in his statement of the law respecting coroners outside Quebec? With great respect, I do not think he is.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like to
pose as an expert on the law outside Quebec; but I am saying that this was an effort made by the legislature of Quebec to have in statutory form what they conceived to be a common law rule. It is well settled by decisions that the coroner is not bound to allow any lawyer to attend his inquest, and that it is only to the extent to which he feels it would be conducive to the better administration of justice that the presence of lawyers is allowed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The reason is that the coroner cannot condemn anyone.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, the debate has already lasted for some considerable time, and I am sure the hon. member will have plenty of opportunity to make his point. However, I was dealing with the suggestion that to have any free man detained or examined without a charge having first been laid against him was a dastardly disregard of the great charters. I thought the hon. member would recognize that in answering that objection I was answering objections made as to the conduct and course of the investigation by the royal commissioners, who have not, any more than the coroner, the right to condemn.
May I refer, to other statutory provisions made by parliament in respect of possible restrictions, restraints or diminutions of the exercise, for reasons of state or for other reasons, of these privileges resulting from the great charters. Some of the matters dealt with in this bill are also dealt with in the Immigration Act. Let us see what is provided in that act, which is set out as chapter 93 of the revised statutes of Canada for 1927. I shall not take the time of the house to read the provisions contained in the Immigration Act. The series of events which took place in 1932 is still sufficiently vivid in the minds of those of us who have reached anything like my age, to make it unnecessary to refer to the dry statutory provisions. I would deem it sufficient to refer only to what was said in the house in May of that year with respect to the detention and whisking away from Winnipeg or North Bay, or other places, to Halifax, for examination before a board of enquiry, of certain persons who had been residents of this country.
I turn to page 2658 of the debates of the House of Commons for 1932 where, under the heading "Deportation Cases" a question was asked when the orders of the day were called.
Canadian Citizenship

The question, standing in. the name of the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late Mr. Woodsworth, was this:
I should like to ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) when he will make a statement with regard to the arrest and threatened deportation of Daniel Holmes, Konrad Cessinger and Orton Wade of Winnipeg. There seems to be something curious about this ease; a good deal is being made of it by the Winnipeg papers. I should like to know under whose authority these men were arrested and on what charge and where they are to' be tried.
Then the Hon. W. A. Gordon, who was acting minister of immigration and colonization-a real minister, and a minister who was responsible for the administration of public affairs at that.time, said:
I assume that the persons to whom reference has been made are persons being investigated under the provisions of the Immigration Act. Under this act a duty devolves upon the minister and the officers of the department to see that people in Canada who have no right to be here are investigated by a board of enquiry and their right to be in Canada reviewed. If it is found that they are undesirable and have no right to be here, or if for other reasons contemplated by the statute it seems that they should be returned to their country of origin, the appropriate steps are taken. There has been no change in the practice or policy of the department since I have had the honour of administering it, and the same practice has been followed for years. The provisions of the statute have not been changed in many years.


Thomas Miller Bell: When was that provision put on the statute book?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it was 1920 that the provision which was then being applied was put on the statute book in the form. in which it then stood.


Thomas Miller Bell: After the Winnipeg strike?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. In* the same volume there is a further reference to this matter when, on the same day, a further question was put to the Minister of Justice of that time as to why he had signed any orders in that respect.


Major James William Coldwell: Who asked the question?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Woodsworth; he referred to this matter again, after the dinner recess. This was his question, at page 2683 of Hansard:
There is another matter about which I should like to ask, which we had up in the house today, that is with regard to men who are threatened with deportation. I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned in this matter as well as the Department of Immigration.
He then cited, a wire and1 asked on what authority the then Minister of Justice had signed a warrant which allowed men to be thus picked up or snatched away from their

homes and taken to Halifax to appear before a board -of inquiry which wou-ld determine whether or no-t they had the right to remain in Canada. Mr. Guthrie, in the course of his reply said:
If, in the opinion of the immigration department, men liable to deportation are not desirable subjects of this country, -they may be taken into custody pending an investigation of their case. There have been many such investigations, but it does not follow that in every case deportation has followed. I assume the investigation is fairly conducted under the provisions of the law; I have not heard of any cases of hardship, nor have I had complaints of maladministration of the act. I assume in these cases the law has been complied with. If the men to whom my hon. friend refers have committed acts which render them liable to deportation, I have no doubt the provisions of the law will be carried out. If they have not, I do not think they have much to fear, outside of perhaps being put to some inconvenience.
Then lower down on page 2685 the then minister is reported to have said:
The act gives the department the right to hold boards of inquiry where they see fit. and I gather from what the Minister of Immigration has said that this board is being held in Halifax to suit the convenience-
The then minister finally said that when his intervention was requested- it was done as a matter of official procedure. Two weeks later, on May 23, on a question again submitted by Mr. Woodsworth on the orders of the day, the report of which appears on page 3249, the matter was again discussed, Mr. Woodsworth saying:
It seems to me to be very unjust and heartless, especially in the case of those men with families, and perhaps the minister could give somd information with reference to this case.
Hon. W. A. Gordon (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization); I have not before me the particulars of the case to which reference has been made, but I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is scarcely stating the position correctly when he suggests that people are being whisked away-if that is what he said-
An hon. Member:	Snatched away.
Mr. Gordon: -snatched away from their homes and placed under arrest and tried. That is not the position at all. These sections of the Immigration Act under which officials of. the department are functioning have been the subject of very considerable debate in this house on a number of occasions. Hon. members who were here in 1910 will remember the debate that then arose when the section of the act as it presently appears in the statutes was brought into being. And in 1919, as some hon. members will recollect, the act was twice amended, in the one session I believe. These amendments were the subject of a good deal of debate in this chamber on a number of occasions, and I believe amendments to 1 the sections in question were passed twice by this chamber. I do not think the amendments received the approval of the other house. Then in 1928, the section as it presently stands, which is a reenactment of the

Canadian Citizenship
legislation of 1910, was passed by this house, and it sets out the method to be followed in connection with investigations in the cases of those who may be or may have been guilty of an infraction of this law.
These men are not snatched away from their homes; they are not under arrest, although they are in detention, it is quite true.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand the
minister is quoting these cases more or less to justify the present procedure; in other words, with the idea that one wrong justifies another?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; I am quoting these cases to show that this is nothing new, that under the authority granted by parliament there is at times interference with what would be the normal exercise of privileges of individuals resulting from the great charter. I quite admit that every time it is done the matter has to be justified on the basis of the case in which it was done.
Not only does parliament give the governor in council the power to do certain things and thereby, by implication, impose upon them the responsibility of doing what the circumstances may require, there are cases where parliament goes to the length of stating in explicit language that the governor in council shall do such and such a thing. The Immigration Act provides for prohibited classes, and section 3 reads:
No immigrant, passenger or other person, unless he is a Canadian citizen, or has Canadian domicile, shall be permitted to enter or land in Canada, or in the case of having landed in or entered Canada shall be permitted to remain therein who belongs to any of the following classes, hereinafter called "prohibited classes":-
(q) Persons guilty of espionage with respect to His Majesty or any of His Majesty's allies.
Section 42 provides:
Upon receiving a complaint from any officer, or from any clerk or secretary dr other official of a municipality against any person alleged to belong to any prohibited or undesirable class,-the minister or the deputy minister or the commissioner may order such person to be taken into custody and detained at an immigrant station for examination and an investigation of the facts alleged in the said complaint to be made by a board of inquiry or by an officer acting as such.
The provision imposing a duty upon the governor in council is contained in section 9 of the Naturalization Act which it is also proposed shall be repealed by the provisions of this bill. This section reads:
Where the governor in council, upon the report of the minister, is satisfied that a certificate of naturalization granted by the minister under this act or granted under any naturalization act heretofore in force in Canada has been obtained by false representation or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, or that the person to whom the certificate was granted has 63260-85
shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, the governor in council shall by order revoke the certificate.
That was passed by parliament. Not only does it provide that the governor in council can do it, it provides that in the circumstances related it would be the statutory duty of the governor in council to pass the order required. Then entering another field let us look at the Bankruptcy Act. Sections 127 to 138 provide that if a man becomes bankrupt and his creditors are disappointed at his allowing something to happen that was not intended to happen he can be examined under oath and asked to explain how and why some of his creditors are to be exposed to the loss of some dollars. Section 138 of the Bankruptcy Act provides:
Any person liable to be examined under the provisions of the ten last preceding sections shall be bound to answer all questions relating to the business or property of the debtor, and as to the causes of his insolvency and the dispostion of his assets, and shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer may tend to criminate the person so examined.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What statute is that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Bankruptcy Act, section 138.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not the person who is being examined there entitled to the protection of the Canada Evidence Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Apparently, not.


John George Diefenbaker: Against the use of the evidence?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not stating it as my opinion that he would not be treated in the same way, but parliament went to the length of saying that he would not be excused from answering questions about the reasons for his insolvency because he might thereby incriminate himself.


Mr. FLEMING:: Will the minister not tell the committee that these examinations are carried on before a court officer and that the bankrupt always has the benefit of counsel.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it is a benefit, I assume counsel may be present. But the position is that the debtor is called upon to explain why it is that this situation of his which was not supposed to happen and which his ' creditors did not expect to happen, and which may cause his creditors to lose some one or more dollars did come about. It is not only the Canadian parliament that has made this provision because the Bankruptcy Act of 1914, chapter 59 of the statutes of the parliament of the United Kingdom of that year, provides in section 15 for a similar situation there.

Canadian Citizenship

Here we have a civil service; we have civil servants sworn to maintain secrecy about the affairs of the state. We got information that secrets of state which were supposed to be safeguarded by those civil servants had found their way into the posesssion of agents of a foreign country. Should we not have the right to ask those civil servants how that came about? Should we not have the right to ask them to explain how that came about? That is just as unexpected to the employer as the happening of bankruptcy is to the creditors of a trader. That also was provided for by parliament and parliament enacted the Inquiries Act. The Inquiries Act provides when and under what conditions a person being examined may have the benefit of counsel. Those sections which provide that the commissioners appointed under the Inquiries Act to make an investigation may, up to a certain point, allow those being examined to have the assistance of counsel and shall at a certain point afterwards, allow them to have the assistance of counsel, were put upon the statute books of this country by an act which was assented to on the 12th of March, 1912. Perhaps there are some hon. members who will remember which party had a majority in this house in the month of March, 1912, and who were those who had real responsibility at that time.


Thomas John Bentley: It was not the C.C.F. party.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think the C.C.P. was known under that name at least at that time, but I suppose it does not matter very much what the name is. At all events I do not think it was the friends of the hon. member who made the interjection.
In 1939 there was, I suppose, a shadow government across the floor, but it is those on this side of the house who have to take the responsibility for proposing and having adopted a statute known as the Official Secrets Act. But parliament passed it.


Alan Cockeram: What date was that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the month of June, 1939. Parliament passed it. I have not looked up the debates to see if it was passed on division, or on a recorded division, but I find it in the statute books as passed in 1939, providing for the repeal of sections 85 and 86 of the criminal code, which related to spying and which were not felt to be sufficiently workable to suit what appeared then to be something not too far in the offing. Parliament provided by section 10 of that statute, chapter 49 of 1939, as follows:
Any person who is found committing an offence under this act, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to
lMr. St. Laurent.]	-
commit, or being about to commit, such an offence, may be arrested without a warrant and detained by any constable or police officer.
I am not free to discuss at this time what has been called the Spy probe. It is still a matter that is sub judice. The final report of the commissioners appointed to make the investigation has not yet been produced. Following that investigation and while it is still proceeding there are cases pending in the courts against former employees, civil servants, of this government, sworn to secrecy and through whom we suspect that official secrets which we know got into foreign hands did get there. But I can say that this criticism about the conduct of the government in connection with this unfortunate incident is a part of those attempts which have frequently been made here to create the impression that this government is offending against individuals and even against parliament itself, that legislation by order in council is something that should never be countenanced in a country which has the benefit of magna charta and the other great charters.
But when it comes down to some of these orders in council we find several members on the other side of the house supporting them and asking that they be applied and carried out. We find also that there is a wave of hysteria trying to be worked up against the making of such orders. I would commend to all those who deplore this hysteria the able argument made by the hon. member for Kamloops in discussing the orders in council dealing with the deportation of persons of the Japanese race. I do not know anything at all about the Japanese race. My fellow Canadians who have been in British Columbia claim that they know a lot about them, and they claim that because of wh'at they know about them it is undesirable that they should be in this country and that all those who can be removed from this country should be removed, and that done as quickly as possible.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Even if they are citizens.


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't know the first thing about it.


William Scottie Bryce: We know as much about it as you do.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: But with respect to that I commend the argument made by the hon. member for Kamloops, in which he cited chapter and verse and text of the Immigration Act and the Naturalization Act which provided that this could be done, in some cases should be done, by the governor in

Canadian Citizenship
council, and called attention particularly to the fact that among the undesirables are those who, by the laws of a country at war with this country, are also subjects of the enemy country, and asserted-and I think he was fully justified in making the assertion'-that subjects of the Japanese race naturalized here nevertheless by the laws of Japan remained subjects of the enemy country. Japan, though it has surrendered its armed forces to the allies, is still in the position of an enemy of this country. It is stated that even those born of Japanese parents in Canada are by the laws of Japan, Japanese subjects. There is something which raises a serious question.
It is unfortunate that questions of that kind should arise. It is unfortunate that there should be any civilized nation that cannot carry out to the full the spirit and the letter of articles 55 and 56 of the charter of the united nations:
55.	With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and rvell-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the united nations shall promote:
a.	higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b.	solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
c.	universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
56.	All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55.
But human nature for a long time has been what it is to-day. The Samaritans of the days of our Lord were people with whom the Jews had no contact or no relations, and the parable of the good Samaritan gets its point precisely from the fact that the Samaritan was one despised by all Jews. Human nature is such that you cannot in an instant make it over; and it is difficult to conceive that a group of persons of the Japanese race, known as our hon. friends from British Columbia who have lived alongside of them say they know them, can become a part of a united community here which would respect to the letter every tittle of this undertaking we have pledged ourselves to carry out under the terms of the charter of the united nations.
I am not advocating that these people should be deported, but I am calling attention to the fact that there do arise situations where general principles have, for other reasons, to be excepted from, departed from, in some cases. It so happens that the War 63260-85 J
Measures Act is no longer applicable. Anything which might be feared from the exercise of undue authority under the wide delegation of powers from parliament contained in that act cannot happen now. I hope this country may never be in a position when it can happen again. But those who have real responsibility have to discharge such responsibility as results to them from the statutes in the form in which they are from time to time applicable and from the implied responsibility which they put upon those on whom they confer power.
The other paradox which this journalist, in describing the "spy probe" referred to, I think does pretty well characterize the situation. He says:
Liberals were not merely embarrassed, many of them were deeply distressed by the suspension of habeas corpus and the whole business of detention, interrogation and confession, with its strong odour of tyranny. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused, many Liberals feel that the necessity of these extraordinary measures has not yet been demonstrated. And of the cabinet, they're inclined to blame the Minister of Justice for having hearkened too readily to the R.C.M.P. True, all the government did was carry out the recommendation of a royal commission, but Liberals have a sneaking suspicion that the recommendation might have been a little less drastic if it had met more opposition.
I do not agree, but I am not challenging anyone's right to hold that opinion.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the minister reading from?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From the last issue of 'Maclean's-. "Backstage at Ottawa, by The Man with a Notebook." I do not know who the man with a notebook is, but evidently he has seen what has been going on in the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is
because he met the woman with a feather duster.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He concludes in this way:
But don't let all the fuss about this civil liberty issue blind you to the fact that it's a purely parliamentary dispute. All parties in the house know that if. by any wild chance, they could have defeated the government on the question of its spy probe procedure, the government could have gone to the country and won a smashing victory.
This may be one reason why the other parties didn't mention the issue in their amendments to the address in reply.
My hon. colleague suggests I do not agree that habeas corpus was suspended. No; I stated on a previous occasion that habeas corpus was not suspended, but the order in council was such that when it was brought
Canadian Citizenship

before the court and an order in its terms produced before the court, the result would be what the result was in the Gray case, where the habeas corpus writ issued and where it was quashed when the order in council upon which the man's detention had been made was produced to the court on the return.
I have no quarrel with the Winnipeg Free Press. The Free Press has great traditions. It was my privilege to know and to be for a considerable time in the company of its late editor, that great Liberal, Mr. John Dafoe. I know how keenly he felt about this, and how strict he would have been in applying every tittle of that undertaking in the charter of the united nations. I know the respect which he enjoyed of those who have succeeded him, and I am not surprised that they should persist in that attitude. The respect we have for them does not make it necessary for us to share all their views, and need not blind us to the fact that there can arise situations, such as those which the hon. member for Kamloops dealt with so effectively in his argument, which must be taken into account in administering affairs for which one has any responsibility.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I begin by adding my-


An hon. MEMBER:: That's a joke.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I might even try that;.you cannot tell. I begin by paying my compliment to the hon. member for Kamloops. He must be in a strange position: praised by the Minister of Justice on Wednesday and damned by his colleague the night before. Thus doth politics strange bedfellows make. When one sees two ministers, one relying greatly on him and the other tearing him apart, one can see to what point certain people have been driven in supporting an impossible proposition.
I do not intend to follow the Minister of Justice seriatim in what he said. I am ready to agree with him that the late John Dafoe was a great man, but just what that has to do with this bill I do not know. Apparently the Winnipeg Free Press has been dexterized, or something of that sort since and it now occasionally takes a different point of view.
The minister read from the Bankruptcy Act, but he did not read from the Evidence Act, which I intend to do. Section 5 provides:
No witness shall be excused from answering any question upon the ground that the answer to such question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the crown or of any person.
The section which applies is that famous section 5, with which all lawyers are familiar,
I Mr. St. Laurent.]
and which provides protection for the individual unless it be specifically taken away. It provides for the protection of the individual in giving evidence in other proceedings, and he is liable then only for perjury.
Let me go a step further with respect to the Bankruptcy Act because of some practical experience which I have had with it. Even though no protection has been asked for I know that the criminal courts in my province have refused to accept statements by a bankrupt pertaining to charges which were later laid against him. Therefore in that province at least we give him the usual protection.
The Minister of Justice said that if we can have creditors ask questions of a bankrupt- I am not using his exact words-is it not reasonable to suppose that when we had these employees-"we" being the government of Canada, I take it-and learned that they had given information to a foreign power could we not ask them about the matter? Certainly you could. No one has ever doubted for a moment the right of an employer at all times to ask questions of employees in such circumstances. But take a look at the man by the name of Shugar. This is not sub judice at the moment; it is a matter which has been disposed of. It is not merely a matter of asking questions of a suspected person. I hold in my hand a press clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of April 25. This is what he says:
Kept in absolute ignorance of the reason for his arrest for the first three days of his incarceration, Dr. Shugar said he was kept under constant guard in a small, stifling hot room measuring nine feet by eight feet and in which a two hundred-watt lamp, completely unshaded, burned continually. This lasted for fifteen of the twenty-eight days he was held at Rockcliffe, he said.
From then on he went on a hunger strike, as we all know, and so on. That man appeared before the royal commission. He was charged. The evidence was all brought before the court and a magistrate of this city found what? He found that there was not even sufficient evidence against him to warrant a commital or being remanded for trial. What does that mean? In the language that a layman can understand it means that the crown did not produce sufficient evidence which, if unanswered, might lead a jury to convict That in very simple and lay language is the rule which guides magistrates.
The minister then went back some years ago. I am quite sure he had some assistance in making the studies of Hansard when his party occupied the benches over here. I am quite sure he has had that, but it will be

Canadian Citizenship
observed that in each and every case he mentioned it took place in war time. These things were not done in war time. I believe the Gray case came up in Calgary in 1918.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was not the Gray case that was in Hansard. I referred to Hansard of 1932 and it had to do with a period when the same political party was in power.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I realize that. I am going back to the Gray case. If I remember correctly, that came from my own home city. But these were all detentions under a statute. Let me go a step further. I am going to ask the minister this simple question. I appreciated the difficulty that he had when he spoke before. I appreciated his frankness in saying that it gave him very great concern indeed when he had the order made. In view of what happened since, does the minister not think it would have been infinitely better if the other side of his mind had prevailed and the orders had never been signed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The minister does not agree. He had to take a grave responsibility, but still feels that it would have been a greater responsibility, in view of the existence of provisions which enabled to be done that which was being recommended to him, to refuse to do it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then why the reluctance to sign the order? The minister never had any doubt about it, apparently.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did give it serious consideration, because in my case at least when a serious matter has to be decided I do not just jump at the decision; I turn over the arguments for and against it and try to come to a reasoned as well as a reasonable decision.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other
words, the minister does the same as everyone else tries to do in coming to a conclusion; he tries to give it some thought.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With the
great oration the minister made just now that is how he came to the conclusion.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
was giving the impression that I never had any hesitancy about it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I thought
the minister used the word "reluctance" some time ago. I believe he did. However, we shall let that part of it pass.
I shall now turn to the bill itself. The impression has been given that here we are doing something contrary to what has been
done in the United Kingdom. I wish to clear that up by reading a short extract from the eleventh edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britan-nica," volume III, page 943. The extract is headed:
Bill of Rights.
On February 13, 1689, the declaration of right was delivered by the lords and commons to the Prince and Princess of Orange, afterwards William III and Mary.
In December, 1689, the rights claimed by the declaration were enacted with some alteration by the bill of rights, next to Magna Charta, the greatest landmark in the constitutional history of England and the nearest approach to the written constitutions of other countries.
The reason I read that is this. We have been told that we have all these rights by common law, and so on; but in the mother of parliaments it is a matter of a statute, and has been so for one hundred and fifty years. I am not suggesting that the British legislation is in the exact form of the amendment moved here, but let us get away from this idea that there is anything wrong in putting in statutory form a bill of rights which, as far as personal liberty is concerned, is all the hon. member for Lake Centre has been trying to do.
I very much enjoyed the address of the Minister of Justice in which he poked fun at the hon. member for Lake Centre. I was glad the minister promoted the hon. member to be Minister of Justice, and I am inclined to think the promotion will become a fact perhaps just a little sooner than many of us anticipate. The minister being at the moment the substance and we the shadow, I am sure he will agree that when the hon. member for Lake Centre becomes the substance he will make a very fine minister indeed. I am sure everyone will agree with that. But all this amusement, which caused great applause from hon. gentlemen opposite; this statement that you are the substance and we the dhadow simply amounts to this, that you are in and we are out. We know that, and quite frankly we tried to get in but failed. Is there anything more to. be said about it than that? But it does not mean for one moment that, being the shadow, we here do not accept our responsibilities, particularly in public utterances about statutes of this country, just as seriously as anyone on that side of the house. Democracy means, of course, that you must have an opposition. I am sure the Secretary of State is grateful to hon. members on this side for two suggestions which he has adopted by way of amendment to his bill, one coming from this party and one from the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I do say this, Mr. Chairman, and with it I. am going to close. We on this side have
Canadian Citizenship

constituencies as well as hon. gentlemen opposite. We also try to represent all the people of Canada, just the same as hon. gentlemen opposite do. The newspaper which the hon. gentleman read said they would have won a wonderful or a smashing victory; and public sentiment at that time being uneducated and: not knowing the facts, I believe there was some justification for that view.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That may be amusing, but I am just giving you a few facts. I am glad you are laughing over them and not crying; that time has not yet come. With respect, however, I say that we have advanced this suggestion seriously. We had hoped the minister would accept it. I know it is outworn, but we believed that in the so-called1 spy cases things were disregarded which should not have been disregarded. So that when this bill does pass we say, please believe that we have contributed our share. No citizenship bill should be political, and we here have not approached it in that way.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I always listen to the Minister of Justice with respect and admiration, but today he was disappointing. The mountain groaned in the pangs of birth and lol a mouse was born. The _ right hon. gentleman gave me the impression of shadow-boxing, but he could not locate the shadow; his footwork was slow. The burden of part of his remarks was to the effect that there was nothing new in the interference by parliament with the citizens. That I concede. As far as these spy cases go, however, we are objecting to the interference with the citizen by the executive, without parliament knowing anything about the matter. However, I shall deal with that a little later on.
There is a confusion of thought among certain hon. members to my right which I should like to see cleared up. The hon. member for Kamloops, to whom I refer again, said yesterday in all sincerity, I take it, as reported at page 1304 of Hansard:
We have Always regarded ourselves as free men. We have taken it for granted that ours is a heritage of freedom. Ours is the proud attribute of those who can say, "We are free, and no man can impose on our rights unless we consent." That surely is one of the greatest possible attributes of Canadian citizenship.
I quite agree, but as far as I am concerned that applies to all Canadian citizens, no matter what their colour, their creed or their sex, and in the mind of the hon. member for Kamloops I do not think that does apply to all Canadian citizens. That is where the confusion of thought arises. In this party to my

right are certain members from British Columbia who will wholeheartedly support the hon. member for Lake Centre in his justifiable demand for a bill of rights, and who then will turn around when we get to section 16 or so of the bill and demand that Canadian citizens be deported from this country. How can they reconcile this in their own minds? There is only one way of achieving some sort of reconciliation, and I put it up to the leader of the opposition. I hope this will be drawn to his attention; I do not see him in the house at the moment. I put it up to the leader of the official opposition that it is his responsibility to this parliament and to Canada to state explicitly the policy of his party in regard to the deportation of Canadians of Japanese descent. I want to know where we stand on this business of citizenship, because there has been a lot of hot air about it in this house. I want to know, too, where the Liberal party stands. The Minister of Justice said he wras not advocating that the Japanese should be deported. What does the government advocate? We know what the Minister of Veterans Affairs advocates. We do not know what the Minister of Justice advocates. I think we know that the Secretary of State would oppose the deportation of Canadian citizens, if we are to believe his words as they appear in Hansard. All right, then; I think it is the responsibility of the government of Canada to state here definitely what is to happen to Canadian citizens of Japanese descent. Either this act of citizenship means something or it means nothing; and if it means nothing let us tear it up and stop wasting the time of this house and of the country.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I thought he put up an excellent case indeed, and no one could question his sincerity on the matter of fundamental civil rights or the rights of any citizens at all. But when he was asking for this bill of rights thoughts were running through my mind. Was he speaking for his party to-day? Had he forgotten the history of his party, how time after time it has taken away the rights of Canadian citizens? Might I remind him of what happened in 1919, before the Progressive Conservative party had its face lifted. I would remind the hon. gentleman that in that year Mr. Meighen, who was a member of the government and who afterward rose to the prominence of leader of the Conservative party, had to deal with a situation in Winnipeg known as the general strike. On one occasion during that strike ten Canadian

Canadian Citizenship
citizens were arrested, and what did Mr. Meighen do? He sent a wire to Winnipeg, the contents of which were as follows:
Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course, now that the arrests have been made; and later we can consider ratification.
That was the concept of justice, democracy, citizenship-call it what you like-of Mr. Meighen in 1919. A man would be arrested and thrown into prison; and after that the government would validate these actions. That was the time, may I remind the house, when the founder of the C.C.F., the late Mr. Woodsworth, was arrested. I believe I should tell The house, in the speech he made at Winnipeg, his actual quotation from Isaiah-and for this he was arrested and charged with seditious libel-was: "And they shall build houses, and inhabit them." I think that text ought to be given to the Minister of Reconstruction.
The Minister of Justice dealt with the amendments of 1919 to the Immigration Act. I should like to quote from page 4017 of Hansard for 1926 when my predecessor in the constituency of Winnipeg North, Mr. Heaps, spoke. Might I add that Mr. Heaps was one of those who suffered in 1919. In connection with the amendment to the Immigration Act he said:
A bill which was introduced in this house which took away from a British subject the right of trial by jury, one of the foundation-stones on which the whole system of British jurisprudence has been built up in the course of many a century. Yet it received all its readings and was passed in the course of twenty minutes. The bill was passed in another house in an equally brief period. Its enactment into law therefore took only the short space of forty minutes. Under that act men in Winnipeg were arrested and were to be deported.
And Mr. Manion, trying to allot the blame fairly, said, as reported on the same page:
In fairness to the Conservative members in this house, is it not true that in respect to that bill which my hon. friend says passed the house in twenty minutes-I was a member of the house at the time-there was not only no protest from the Conservatives, but no protest from the Liberals or the Progressives at that time?
You were all in it. All parties in the house took away the liberties of citizens in 1919. Have you changed so much in these intervening years? Are the faces so new, or are the names or the labels new? We have no guarantee at all that such a thing will not happen again, given another wave of hysteria in this country. That is why it is essential that, despite our common law, despite magna charta and habeas corpus we must have some
protection for Canadian citizens in this country, and a bill of rights might perhaps give some protection additional to that which now exists.
Speaking in the debate yesterday, the Secretary of State quoted Tennyson:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.
That poem referred to Great Britain. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, suggests that it be brought up to date, amended, and applied to Canada, in which event there might be a slight change:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom slowly narrows down From order in council to order in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not quite as good poetry as the one the hon. member quoted first.


Major James William Coldwell: Not quite as good a poet, either.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
should like to deal briefly with this order in council P.C. 6444. Here was a secret order in council under which the government arrested certain Canadian citizens. It has been said in the house that there were no such things as secret orders in council. The Minister of Justice said that he forgot-and I accept his word, without reservation whatsoever. He forgot. But how many lapses of ministerial memory will occur in the future? Furthermore, can we possibly legislate against such lapses, in the hope of securing safety for citizens in Canada? I doubt it. very much.
These people were arrested and held in a barracks, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary West. Some of them were held in a small room, with a bright light blazing on them all the time, day and night, although this was denied in the house, too. Well, if that is British justice, if that is Canadian fair play, I do not know the meaning of the words, at all.
I should like to remind the committee of what the Minister of Justice said when he was talking about coroners. He said that the Royal Commission had no more right than a coroner to condemn those in custody. But what were the words of those estimable gentlemen who make up this royal commission?
We were not impressed by the demeanour of Shugar or by his denial, which we do not accept. In our view we think he knows more than he was prepared to disclose.
The magistrate said there was no ground upon which a prosecution could properly be
Canadian Citizenship

brought, and he very properly rebuked two of our supreme court judges. But these judges had already given their decision against this man whom the magistrate found innocent.
Of course we need some security for people in this country, greater security than I think this government is prepared to give us.
Another statement made last night by the minister was this:
The protection under our system depends upon two things: first, the guarantees provided by the common law and set forth in part in Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights; and second, the fundamental democratic tradition and the British operation of parliament itself. Those are the guarantees relied upon in our system, which the government believes to be the best way of guaranteeing the rights and freedom of the subject.
That is lovely, but it means nothing. In the first speech I made in the house I directed most of my remarks to the Minister of Mines and Resources, who is responsible for immigration. I said then that the practice of this government so far as immigration was concerned was to have different classifications for citizens coming to this country. You had preferred types; you had non-pre-fererd types, and even those lower than nonpreferred who could come in only under special permits-the Turks, Italians, Armenians and Jews.
When I hear a government espousing a citizenship bill, and asking that the rights and privileges of citizens be observed,- while at the same time denying those rights and privileges in such a flagrant way, I have my doubts about the good faith of that government, even though I can accept the word of the minister. As a matter of fact, however, I do not accept the word of the government in this regard, because I believe they will flout democratic principles whenever they feel like it.
The Secretary of State, like the Minister of Justice, spoke of these great freedoms for which Liberalism always stood. Then the minister went on to mention the Japanese question, and showed how Liberalism had desecrated its own principles. I have asked the leader of the official opposition to make a statement of the policy of his party with respect to Japanese-Canadians. I should like to see the leader of the house do the same thing.	.
Before this debate is concluded I should like to hear the Minister of Mines and Resources tell the house that discrimination in connection with the immigration laws will no longer be permitted-or will this bill be just another Pharisaical presentation to the house?
I would refer to a speech I made last September, when I asked that there should be a bill of rights. I had been in the house for only 
two weeks, and I was optimistic. I thought the Liberal government might possibly see some reason in a bill of rights. Now I admit that the possibility of amending the constitution is something more than remote, so that we shall have to incorporate such a bill of rights in legislation.
When speaking on second reading of this bill I said that we should have a bill of rights. When the hon. member for Lake Centre introduced his amendment I thought it was one I could support. But a more careful consideration of the matter and a more careful reading of his amendment convince me that it is one which I cannot support. It is not because I disagree completely with the principle. contained in the words of the amendment, for I find myself in agreement with much of what is said; what I disagree with is the narrowness and restrictiveness of the amendment. A bill of rights surely cannot apply only to a small group of people in the community; a bill of rights should apply to every man, woman and child in the country. This amendment would have the effect of making its principles apply only to those who receive certificates of citizenship and, to my mind, that is too narrow and too restricted. It does not constitute a general bill of rights because of its restrictiveness, and on that basis I shall have to oppose it.
I think the hon. member for Lake Centre and I see eye-to-eye on many things in this bill. It is no secret that I intended to move an amendment to the preamble of the bill, where I thought such an amendment properly belonged. The amendment was to have been as follows:
Whereas this act establishes Canadian citizenship it is deemed advisable to reaffirm the bases of that citizenship and to assert that the following rights shall belong to every Canadian and shall be held inviolate-the right to civil, religious and political liberty; the right to freedom of the person, of speech and associaton; the right to equal treatment before the law:
I would suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre that he consider withdrawing his amendment and substituting the one I have just read. There would be nothing unusual in having such an amendment to the preamble. After all, we did a similar thing in connection with the united nations charter which we accepted last year by which we pledged ourselves to reaffirm our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human person, and in equal rights for mankind. If it were agreed that such a declaration of faith be made to the world, then to that extent we should make the same affirmation of faith to the people- of Canada.

Canadian Citizenship


Thomas Miller Bell: Reference has been made to the revocation of naturalization certificates which it is provided may be done through the courts or by a commission. I should like to know the position of a British subject by naturalization granted in Great Britain or in Australia or in New Zealand. Have we the right to ask the court here to revoke that naturalization certificate? Have we the right to revoke it ourselves?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 25 provides for their concurrence.


Major James William Coldwell: I wanted to be clear on that. What we would have to do would be to consult the government of the United Kingdom, for instance, and if they concurred, then this action would be proceeded with?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that several references have been made this afternoon to my remarks with regard to the Japanese, because it allows a reference to them now to remove from the committee an impression which may have been left as a result of the extraordinary distortion of my statements which was made by the Secretary of State in his speech last night. He said, as reported at page 1310 of Hansard, after having read a statement of my own:
He discharges his conscience with the remark that most of the Japanese are not citizens.
The Secretary of State was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South to read a little farther on, but this the minister refused to' do. The purpose of the remarks which the minister quoted was to show that the steps proposed by the government under order in council were not steps against Canadian citizens. That was the whole case. Whether it be right or wrong is a different matter. My whole case was founded on the assumption that the Japanese dealt with are not Canadian citizens. The minister was pressed to continue the quotation but he did not, so that I will now complete the quotation for him by adding the sentences immediately following. After having said that most of the Japanese affected are not citizens of Canada, I went on to say:
They are not being deprived of their citizenship by order in council. I would be among the first to object to such a step.
But when the minister came to those two sentences, instead of reading them, he said, "and so on." I am not going to impute motives. I merely repeat the remarks now and draw attention to the fact also that therein may be found the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The second quotation from my speech that was made by the minister was taken from page 624 of Hansard. Again he was pressed by myself to give the whole of the quotation, but this he refused to do, saying "I am making my speech now." I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not strictly acurate , because the minister was making my speech-


John George Diefenbaker: Making it over.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and distorting it, or as my hon. friend, the member for Lake Centre says, making it over. I do not object to the minister reading a passage from my speech if he will read the whole of it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It might do him a lot of good.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The remarks which I made, and which were not quoted by the minister,
[Mr. Church. 1
were based on my thesis that the people sought to be deported are not Canadian citizens. The minister just read those portions which suited his desire, and since he refused to continue the quotation when pressed to do so, I will now read it for him. I said, as reported at page 624 of Hansard:
I think hon. members and the people generally should bear this in mind also when dealing with this matter, that the weight of evidence is to the effect that many of the Japanese evicted by these orders of deportation were certainly not subjects or citizens.
That is the point I was trying to make, and that is the point I repeat here, that the government in these orders in council is not taking a step which affects the status of Canadian citizens. Therefore there can be nothing inconsistent in subsequently saying that the government must not in future take steps by order in council to affect the status of a Canadian citizen.
In case there should be any further doubt in the minister's mind, I should like to read my further words, which were equally available to the minister had he desired to present a fair picture to the committee. I said, as reported at page 1154 of Hansard:
I have asked continually that the members from British Columbia be given a fair opportunity to state their case against the Japanese in order that this parliament of Canada may decide the matter on principles of justice.
Those words speak for themselves and it is not desirable to enter into further controversy over this matter, though it should be said that I restrain myself from doing so only by the rules of the house forbidding me to impute motives to another hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the question of Canadians of Japanese origin would be discussed on another occasion and be decided by the house. I hope that the government will find some way of bringing the matter before the house so that there can be a completely free vote of the house on this question. I know perfectly well that there are hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house who feel that the bill as now redrafted with the amendment confirming certain orders in council will embarrass them perhaps more than they desire to be embarrassed.
I said that I hoped the Japanese question could be discussed on another occasion. My opinion, and I have stated it on a number of occasions, is this, that any person in this country who has been proved by the courts of this land to be guilty of disloyalty or sedition should be dealt with according to Canadian law and that we should not penalize a whole people on account of their racial

Canadian Citizenship
origin. I state that without fear of being termed anti-democratic, for I believe it is the democratic point of view.
I welcome this citizenship bill, not because I think it will do all that we desire, but because it is a step in the right direction.
I am very much in support of the idea of incorporating in the bill something in the nature of an expression of the rights of a Canadian citizen. Like my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I was impressed last evening by the argument that this bill did not cover all classes of our citizenship and that a very large proportion of our citizens are not covered by the proposed amendment; that is to say, the native Canadian born. That, I think, is a grave defect in the amendment, which at first I was prepared to support.	-
I think the suggestion made this afternoon with regard to the preamble is a good one. The preamble, of course, is not a part of the statute, but none the less it serves to guide those who subsequently interpret the law. However, the difficulty that confronts one is this: If the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre is defeated, can a similar amendment be moved to the preamble? I am not sure as to the procedure. I do not want to risk losing the opportunity to incorporate somewhere in the bill an expression of the rights of a Canadian citizen.
As has been so often stated in the house during the past few days, there have been times when governments have seriously interfered with the rights of Canadian citizenship, and one of the reasons why I am in favour of a certificate being given to all those who come into this country to live here is that I think it is well they should have something to show that they are domiciled in Canada. During the debate to-day I was thinking of an old friend of mine who in 1919 happened to be a resident of Winnipeg. He was not involved in any way in the strike. One day the immigration authorities sent him a registered letter ordering him to appear to show why he should not be deported; he appeared, and he was told that he had been in some way implicated in the strike and that they had decided they were going to deport him. "But", he said, "I am an Englishman; I was born in England." Then he was told, "That makes it all the easier to deport you." Well, he went to a lawyer. The lawyer is still in Winnipeg, and my friend to whom I refer as a good friend is still living in Canada and, as a matter of fact, was a few years ago the highly respected member of a large city school board, an outstanding educationist, and subsequently chairman of that board. The lawyer said, "Have you not forgotten something?" He asked, "What have I forgotten?" "Some years ago", said the lawyer, "you wanted to vote, and they asked you for a birth certificate to prove that you were a. British subject, and you could not produce a birth certificate." The reason my friend could not produce a birth certificate was that his parents had been immigrants into Great Britain; he happened to have been born shortly after they arrived and his birth was never registered.	.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are thousands of cases like that.


Major James William Coldwell: So the lawyer suggested to him that he apply for naturalization; and he got his Canadian naturalization papers. My friend, who has a keen sense of humour, received a notice that on a certain day he was to report at the C.P.R. station in Winnipeg. He did so; he was ordered into a room, and then the commissioner, who at that time I believe was Mr. Jolliffe-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And still is.


Major James William Coldwell: -said to him, "You are going to be deported." Another man said to him, "What is your objection to going?" He said, "I happen to be an Englishman, born in England", and this minor official said to him, "Oh, well, we have got one of you Englishmen where we want you. You will go back to Dngland." Then my good friend casually put his hand in his pocket and pulled out his Canadian naturalization papers. It was found that, with these papers, he could not be deported, and he went back home and stayed in Winnipeg.
This afternoon other cases have been mentioned. Another good friend ' of mine. English-born, was arrested and put in gaol. He even went to the expense of sending his family back to Great Britain. As a matter of fact, if I may divulge this, his son is at present acting as my secretary, and as a little shaver in England sawr his father on the screen under arrest in the city of Winnipeg and called out in the theatre, "That's my dad".
I am glad that these certificates are to be issued to all our people. I know there is some objection to the five-year period for those who come from democratic countries' with institutions similar to our own. I can . sympathize wfith that feeling. We might perhaps have worded the bill that the application may be made within the five-year period.
Japanese Nationals


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or follow the Australian act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Australian act is the same as ours.


Major James William Coldwell: These certificates will in my opinion, be of great value to people who come here from abroad. As one who was not born in this country but who became domiciled here by long residence, I should be proud, although it is not necessary for me to get such a certificate, that I had been able to get it within five years of having come to this country. I think those of us who were bom across the seas in the old land would have been proud to have had something to show that we had been received formally into the Canadian family. To my mind, this objection to some of these clauses is more or less beside the point. It is not anything which reflects on the individual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can we not dispose of this section now?


Major James William Coldwell: I would much prefer to see whether some solution could not be arrived at regarding the incorporation somewhere in the bill, either through the preamble or an amendment, embodying a statement of rights. I prefer it in the preamble. As I say, I do not want to lose the opportunity of Someone being able to move it in the preamble on account of the loss of the proposed amendment, which, if I may guess the tenor of the debate, is certain to be defeated. I would like a little more time to consider the procedure, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 9, 1946.