1947-06-02

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce that the President of the United States of America will visit Ottawa on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. The president will be accompanied by Mrs. Truman and Miss Truman.
The invitation to visit Canada was conveyed some time ago to the President, on behalf of of the government, both by His Excellency the Governor General and by myself as Prime Minister.
I am sure it will be gratifying to hon. members that, notwithstanding personal anxieties of recent weeks, the President has found it possible to carry out his visit as planned. Hon. members will likewise be delighted that Mrs. Truman and Miss Truman will be with the President.
The President and his official party will leave Washington on the afternoon of Monday, June 9, and .will arrive at Ottawa at 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10. The President will be met at the Canadian border and be accompanied to Ottawa by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), and Mr. Atherton, the Ambassador of the United States.
On arrival at Ottawa, the President and Mrs. Truman will be met by His Excellency the Governor General and the Viscountess Alexander and by myself. Others present will include Madame St. Laurent and Mrs. Atherton, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States and Mrs. Wrong, and His Worship the Mayor of Ottawa and Mrs. Lewis.

Visit oj President Truman
The President's train will not be brought in to the Union station, but will be stopped at Island Park drive, to permit of the President and his party approaching the city and driving to government house by way of the experimental farm and the canal driveway, as was arranged at the time of the visit of the King and Queen. A guard of honour will be mounted at Rideau gate. On the President's arrival at Government house, there will be a salute of 21 guns.
In the evening, a state dinner and reception will be given at government house by Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Alexander.
On the morning of Wednesday, June 11, the President will address a meeting of members of both houses of parliament. Hon. members are asked to assemble in this chamber at 11.30 a.m. The proceedings will commence at 11.45 and will be broadcast over a national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
At 12.30, at the conclusion of the morning's proceedings, the President will leave the parliament buildings by the main entrance, and will drive by way of Bank street, Laurier avenue and Elgin street, to the national war memorial, where the President will lay a wreath at the foot of the memorial.
Following this ceremony, members of both houses will be afforded the honour of meeting the President at a parliamentary luncheon to be held at the Chateau Laurier.
The President and Mrs. Truman have kindly accepted an invitation to be my guests at dinner at Laurier house on Wednesday evening.
Thursday, June 12, is being kept free of official engagements so that the President and his party may have a day for relaxation. In the evening, the President and Mrs. Truman will be the guests of the United States Ambassador and Mrs. Atherton at dinner at the United States embassy.
The President will leave Ottawa, by train, later the same evening.
Mr. II. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a word on behalf of the official opposition concerning the announcement just made by the Prime Minister?
We are delighted to learn that President Truman is to visit Canada while parliament is in session. It is always a great privilege and pleasure to receive the head of the United States, our cousin nation and trusted ally. Particularly is that so on this occasion, because senators and members, representing Canadians from coast to coast, will be able to participate in the welcome and to hear the President
speak on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons. His visit is one more indication of the good will prevailing between our peoples. Quite apart from the formal welcome to the President, we are glad to welcome him, his wife and daughter, as individuals. I am sure I speak for all members of the house when I say we feel that they are old friends. We have noticed their great capacity for friendliness, that trait which is so characteristic of citizens of the United States. We of the official opposition trust that our distinguished visitors will thoroughly enjoy their stay in Canada.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown- Biggar):: May I immediately associate the C.C.F. party with what the acting leader of the opposition has so well said. I think he expresses the feeling of all of us when he says we are delighted to hear that the President of the United States has accepted the cordial invitation extended by the government and will be among us as the representative of a great people. I think we can all assure the Prime Minister that the invitation will be appreciated by the Canadian people-the acceptance of it even more so-and that they all will join in welcoming President Truman as the head of our great and friendly neighbour.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I take much satisfaction in joining with the two speakers who have preceded me in saying how much we appreciate the Prime Minister's announcement. We look forward with keen anticipation to hearing the President of the United States receive the welcome which I am sure the people of Canada will accord to him.



IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
259,	to amend the Identification of Criminals Act.
He said: This is a short bill extending the provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act from those charged with indictable offences to those charged with extraditable offences.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right. Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
260,	to amend the Interpretation Act.
Labour Conditions
COMiMONS
He said: This bill cannot be explained in a sentence or two. It corrects some errors in the Interpretation Act and brings it up to date in several respects. It will be necessary to make these corrections before the work of consolidating or revising the statutes is undertaken, which should be some time within the next few years at the latest.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. LABOUR CONDITIONS

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of the house to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the action of the government in authorizing certain Canadian industrialists to select individuals from displaced persons' camps in Europe and bring such individuals to work in Canada under contract, it being the traditional policy of parliament that the importation of indentured labour should be completely prohibited, which means that the selection of displaced persons and refugees and their admission to this country should be directed entirely by the federal government with a view to resettling these people as free human beings in such a way as to serve their best interests and those of the Canadian people as well.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me a copy of the motion before the opening of the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman be given leave to move the adjournment of the house?
And leave having been given:


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should explain at the outset that I am introducing this motion for the adjournment of the house in order that we may discuss this matter, which is of urgent public importance in view of the reports which have been appearing in the press that industrialists have proceeded to the displaced persons' camps in Europe in order to select persons for their industries in Canada. I should also like to say that I regret that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is not in his seat this afternoon. I did send him a note before lunch telling him that I was going to raise this question, and I was hoping that he would be present this afternoon.
If we look over the correspondence which has been tabled in the house and the various reports which have appeared in the press, it will be evident at, once why it is that we have thought it well that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing the policy which underlies the movement of these persons to Canada at this time. The other afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and referred to the Alien Labour Act, which is chapter 109 of the revised statutes of Canada, referring him particularly to section 2. I said at once that I knew there were certain sections in that act which gave the government power to do anything that was necessary in order to promote immigration into Canada; but I would draw the attention of the house to what I believe has been the traditional policy not only of this parliament but of the parliaments of the British commonwealth. Section 2 in its principal words says:
It shall be unlawful for any person ... to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist, encourage or solicit the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or agreement ... to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.
So I submit at the outset that this action on the part of the government in permitting industrialists to go to Europe at this time and bring labour into this country under contract is a violation of the intent of this law. I say at once, of course, that I do not regard the bringing into Canada of persons by their relatives, under permission granted by this house through orders in council that have been tabled, as a violation of this law; but I also want to say that from time to time we have had individuals asking for the admission to this country of their relatives, and we have found it very difficult indeed to obtain permission for them to bring their relatives to this country, for a good many reasons. Yet in this particular instance, and in the instances now under discussion in the country, every facility is being given for medical examination, immigration inspection and so on, in order that these people may be brought into the country under contract.
I would draw the attention of the house to the letter written to the then Secretary of State on October 9, 1946, which was included in the correspondence tabled at my request, and to which there was no reply. In that letter the hon. member for Beauce said:
We are producing about two carloads, nearly one-third of the machineries are idle and there is such a turn-over of female help that we are practically operating with learners most or the time. For instance, last year we had a turnover of 555 girls in this plant.

Labour Conditions
At the time that struck me as being a large turnover. If we turn to the Montreal Gazette of Saturday last, May 31, we find a statement attributed to the hon. member for Beauce,
I think in error, since I believe it should have been attributed to his manager who was making the statement surrounding it, as follows:
There are about 425 employees in the plant, and all seem to be quite satisfied with their working conditions.
If there are only 425 employees in the plant and in the previous year, according to his own words, there was a turnover of 555, I submit that careful investigation should have been made before this permission was granted. In the same letter to which I have just referred we find this statement:
The situation here is very bad regarding female help. Last year I built ten nine-apartment houses to take care of large families. I have kept a man with an automobile travelling all over the province since a year to gather poor families that could not find their living in the agricultural places, and which had four or five girls for a family. Up to date I have been successful to bring only seven families.
Then this very interesting sentence follows:
The trouble seems that the people have too much money to spend.
That should have immediately warned the government that the reasons for bringing in these girls might not have been those which have been stated across the country. "The trouble seems to be that the people have too much money to spend."
It is our opinion that under no circumstances should the government permit an individual employer to go abroad and import contract labour into this country. We want to see every facility provided for bringing to this country' displaced persons who are suffering in the displaced persons' camps; but we think that should be done under the most careful supervision of the department of immigration, of the proper officials of the government and of this House of Commons, and not left to any individual or group of individuals who have a vested interest in the labour of distressed people, who may desire to go overseas and bring back contract labour. In the Montreal Gazette of last Saturday I find that the manager of the plant made this statement to the press:
After the girls have paid back their fares, approximately $300 each, they are free to leave at any time.
One of the girls stated:
We signed a contract to work for Mr. Dionne for two years. We are not allowed to leave or get married during that time.
The statement of the girl herself is that this is part of the contract. I say immediately that I saw a denial of that in the paper today.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My hon. friend is a
married man. He should know you cannot make a contract like that.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend the
minister says you cannot make a contract like that. I want to say to the Minister of Labour and the acting minister of immigration that the contract should have been tabled in this house. I asked for it, and I expected it to be found among the papers that were tabled; but the contract was not there. If this is not part of the contract, we would have known it immediately had the contract been tabled in the house. I quite agree with the Minister of Labour that if this is in the contract it is not or should not be an enforceable clause; but the very fact that this girl stated it was part of the contract lends colour to the belief that they think it is in the contract, in any event, whether or not that is so. Of course the two statements 1 have just read are conflicting. According to the first one, after the girls have paid back their fares of approximately $300 they are free to leave at any time. With regard to the marriage provision, in the Toronto Star in its night edition of May 31, 1947, which is in the parliamentary reading room, the manager of the plant, a Mr. Adams, is quoted as saying:
It is a disgrace for a married woman to work down here no matter how great her need.
This may lend some colour to the suggestion that these girls were warned that they were not to marry within the two-year period.
Now I come to another very serious side of this whole matter. What are the conditions under which these girls are to work in that plant? What are the conditions under which the men will work who may be brought in by industrialists who are said to be going to Europe to choose people for the logging industry? Are these conditions to be agreed upon with representatives of the workers, or are the conditions to be laid down by an individual employer, or between employer and employee only? I notice that one of the employees in the rayon industry, Gedeon Rancour, is quoted as having said:
There are local girls who asked for jobs two weeks ago at the Dionne mills and were refused.
Apparently the conditions in the plant are such that the local girls will not take jobs there. The same man, Rancour, who was an employee of the plant, said that-
After working six years as a machinist at the Dionne mills, he was fired early this week, for
Labour Conditions

his union sympathies. "After six years I was making only 47 cents an hour, or $28 a week." "I have heard of only one man in the plant who is making 50 cents an hour," he continued. "Another, a machinist makes 55 cents an hour. The highest is a maintenance man who makes 60 cents an hour. Last week Lucien Pelletier, the plant superintendent, called me into the foreman's cloak room and said:	'You have kicked
about the Polish girls coming here. Two union men have been here and you seemed happy about that. You had better leave'."
If that statement is true it gives a clue to one of the reasons why the employer is anxious to bring this type of labour into the plant, and why it is that there is no union in this particular plant.
The organizer for the Textile Workers of America, Bob Gareau, is quoted as follows: "I have never been in a town where I have been so enthusiastically received," he said. "I have talked to most of the Dionne employees and I have had men who are heads of families tell me they are making no more than $14 a week. One girl told me she is making $11 a week and that her father is making $15 a week. I haven't spoken to a man yet who makes more than $28 a week. Most of them make from $11 to $15."
If these conditions are as outlined in the public press then I say the government of Canada, and particularly the department of immigration, have been derelict in their duty in not going into this matter more carefully than apparently has been done, and seeing to it that these girls were not brought into the country under the conditions which have been described.
It is true that arrangements have been made for their reception. I have no doubt that the conditions under which they will live will be good morally, but that does not in any way mitigate the situation.
No one can accuse me of having religious prejudices. By way of preface I should say that back in 1920 and 1921, when I was an officer of the teachers federation in my prov-ihce, my own church, the Anglican church, set out to bring in a number of teachers on the basis of their being members of that church.
I opposed that, because I did not think religion should in any sense govern the entry of a person into Canada or his employment when he gets here. It is unfortunate that the religious angle enters into this matter at all, and that the people who come in are chosen for their religious faith. It is a mistake, and it is something the government and all of us will regret.
I say again that we are not opposed to the bringing of persons to this country from displaced persons camps. We have urged it. We have urged it publicly across the country, and in this house. We have joined with others on all sides of the house and in the country in 
urging that Canada should do more for these suffering people than she has done up to the present time. I repeat that now. But, sir, we have an obligation to the people in displaced persons camps who are to be brought here, to see to it that conditions under which they come are such as we would expect a free Canada to provide for them on their arrival- people who should have come here, as the motion to adjourn says, as free human beings and not as contract labour.
The history of this parliament and of parliaments of nations of the commonwealth associated with us are filled with discussions of indentured labour, and over the week-end I looked up some of these discussions. In the discussions which occurred in 1905 and 1906 in the British House of Commons I saw how repugnant indentured labour was to the Liberal government which was elected in Great Britain in 1906. Indentured labour should be equally repugnant, not only to a government which calls itself Liberal-with a capital L- but to those in this country who share what we call the liberal tradition, with a small 1- that condition of freedom of thought, freedom of action and freedom of association we all prize so highly.
The Minister of Labour has entered into agreement regarding another group of people who are now in camps. But when one contrasts the agreement which has been entered into with respect to this other group with the understanding or the contract under which these girls are entering, and the guarantees which the men are to receive in the logging industry, one sees immediately the great difference. I understand that there is a shortage of skilled labour, for example, in the three needle workers trades. The manufacturers and the three unions involved I am told have cooperated and have seen the Minister of Labour, have come to an understanding among themselves-and I believe the Minister of Labour has approved that understanding- for the relief of that shortage of labour in the textile or needleworking trades by the entry into this country of suitably skilled persons.
The international ladies garment workers, the hat and millinery workers, and the men's garment workers organization-the amalgamated clothing union-entered into negotiations which the manufacturers and with the minister, with the result that they unanimously agreed that the government should permit the entry of several hundred skilled persons recruited from displaced persons camps for the industry. They are to be screened by the government, and the government is bringing them in. The government

Labour Conditions
is to supervise the immigration of these people in every particular, although it is suggested, I am told, that liaison persons representing the unions and the industry might accompany the officials in order to see that the persons so chosen are skilled labour as required. But the agreement is that such persons as come in under this arrangement shall not be called upon, I am told, to assume any responsibility, personally, other than that which any other immigrant would assume in coming to this country-not even repayment of their travelling expenses. It is laid down that the employer shall provide union wages and conditions for the workers who come in for entry into these trades. That is an entirely different kind of agreement from the one under which these girls are coming in. There is no stipulation that they shall join unions- although I say frankly it is quite likely they will, because it so happens that the trades I have just mentioned are pretty well organized, and in all probability they will join their unions.
I know it is said that we run the risk of bringing communists into this country. Well, there has been careful screening of those in the displaced persons camps in Europe, and in the main I would say that practically in all cases the people who are communists have returned to their countries of origin, or, if fascists, have been evicted. The communists have governments with which they agree. In all probability the people who remain in the displaced persons camps are those of various political views, many of them similar to the views held by hon. members on various sides of the house, including those of the party for which I am speaking today.
The understanding I have just mentioned is the kind of planned entry into Canada of which one can approve. It is filling a need in Canada; it is extending to people who have been given asylum and refuge an opportunity to find a home under proper conditions in this country, and to become, as we all are, free citizens of a free country, free to associate and to do as they please as long as they turn out their day's work according to the best of their ability and observe the law.
Should anything go wrong with any one of the Polish girls, and should the department of immigration be called upon to deport her-[DOT] perhaps not for a violation of the contract, because that could not be done, but for some other misdemeanour under the regulations-to what country is she to be deported? These girls are not German citizens, even though they come from Germany. They are Polish nationals. May I say to the Secretary of
State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) that it would have been at least the kind of courtesy for which the right hon. gentleman is so deservedly known to have notified the minister of the Polish government in this city that this large group of Polish nationals was coming into this country.


Mr. BRADETTE:: A farce.	.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I say it would have been a courtesy to do so. Others may not agree with that point of view, but if any one of these girls has to be deported to Poland, what will happen? May I say to the hon. gentlemen who are objecting, the Polish government is a government friendly to this country; it is a government with which we maintain friendly relations. I am a little bit tired of hearing friendly governments-I may disagree with their ideology, but a year or so ago they were our gallant allies and they were praised to the skies for the sacrifices that they undertook in the common cause-being met with the kind of response that we have just heard when I said it would have been a matter merely of courtesy to let the Polish minister know, because at some time or other one or more of these Polish nationals may have to be returned to the country of origin.
The bringing of indentured labour into this country is against all the traditions of our democratic institutions. I could find no precedent for it in recent years. In order to find a precedent I had to go back to the early days of this century when employers brought oriental labour into this country for their railroad operations. I am not comparing the conditions under which these girls are being brought in with the conditions under which that labour was brought in, but I am saying that this is a violation of our traditional position; it is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms; it is a violation of the principles we approved when we signed the charter of the united nations. These people should have come in under the control of the government of Canada and under conditions which had been carefully looked into to see that they were to be given every opportunity of being integrated into the life of this country as Canadian citizens and finding happy homes here.
I have moved that we adjourn in order to discuss this matter which is of particular urgency because of the press reports which tell us, first, that if this experiment is satisfactory as far as the owner of this mill is concerned, other girls will be brought into the country under the same conditions; and second, that other industrialists are going over on the same sort of mission. We say that if we are to have a planned immigration policy
Labour Conditions

for the relief of human misery it should be carried out by this parliament; it should be done according to the best traditions of Canada. As members of this House of Commons we should say in no uncertain terms that we disapprove the manner in which this deal was undertaken.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to tell you that I rise to speak on this motion without any notice. Obviously there is no notice of a motion of this kind. May I congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Coldwell) who has just taken his seat. I agree heartily with him that this is a matter of urgent public importance, and I am pleased indeed that he moved the motion he did.
In dealing with this matter we find that there are two desirable things which to some extent are in opposition to one another; hence our thinking may be a bit confused. I am sure we are all agreed that this country should do all it possibly can for the people in displaced persons camps in Europe. On the other hand we are aware that certain industries are short of labour; certainly labour is very short indeed in some of the heavier industries. So we want two things: We want to assist these persons, who are living under conditions which are far from favourable, and at the same time we want to supply our industries with necessary labour. It seems to me that the only place where there is any room for logical difference is as to the methods employed to bring about those two most desirable objectives.
I must say that I go a long way with the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) on the broad statement that he made, that this should be a matter of general government policy. I realize that it must be government policy, and I use the word "general" for this reason: it is not so long ago that we in this House of Commons were discussing and dealing with a general immigration policy. It seems to me that if at that time there was in the mind of the government the idea of bringing in contract labour, it should have been disclosed then. We should not have been left in the position of having an announcement made as a fait accompli, having the order in council already passed and the announcement made that the man was in Europe, that being the first we learned about it in the House of Commons.
I make that criticism, sir, with very great respect. I fully realize that many things have to be done quickly in order that any government may operate, but it does seem to me that this is a sharp departure from the policy

which has been followed in this country for a long time, and that it should not have been done without the house first having been taken into the confidence of the government. I realize that the minister of immigration has been ill, and that it may take some time for other persons to take over his onerous duties, but it is at least unfortunate that the house did not have an opportunity of discussing this sharp departure in policy until after the thing had actually been done.
I turn to another side of the picture, and that is the legal question. I am not going to decide it at the moment; I think that is probably the government's headache. Offhand I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is a little wrong in his law and that he will find an exception in the act which bars its application to the circumstances we have at the present time. I am not going to say anything more with respect to this particular problem except to emphasize once more what we have tried to emphasize all along in this house, and that is that major changes in policy are matters for the House of Commons, and we should not be told about them after they have taken place.
With respect to the separate issue in the mills outside of Montreal I intend to make no comment. I feel that I have not sufficient facts on which to comment. I am sorry that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is not here, because it seems to me that he could have had many things to say which might have cast a different light on the reports we are getting through the press. So with respect to that I say nothing by way of either criticism or commendation, except that I relate it as a glaring example of a change in traditional policy, to use the phrase used by my hon. friend. With respect, sir, may I suggest that matters of this kind be brought before the House of Commons where we can do a bit of digging when a change in policy is . contemplated? I agree with the change. We are all flooded with letters from persons who want to come here but who perhaps do not come within a certain degree of relationship and so on, but we shall never fulfil our industrial needs with that class. It seems to me important that we shall not leave here without having something more definite than farm work regulations in order that the industry of this country may be able to carry on, and in order that we may not have the type of unfavourable newspaper publicity that we have had in the past two weeks in respect to these one hundred poor girls who think

Labour Conditions
they may be moving into heaven and who certainly have come from almost unbelievable hell.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house very long, but I do feel that I should say just a word. I believe that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, has performed a real service'to this country by bringing before the house this question of the importation of indentured labour; for that is exactly what it is. It has no relationship whatever to an immigration policy; it is strictly the importation of indentured labour, and I speak for this group when I say that we are opposed to that practice. It does not relate itself in any way to a well-defined democratic immigration policy.
I believe, too, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has said, that there are grave doubts in the minds of the people across this country whether the practice may not become a fixture. I do not want to see anyting like that in this country.
The purpose of an immigration policy, it seems to me, should be twofold: in the first place to help populate this country with desirable people and in the second place to do our share at least in assisting these unfortunate souls who find themselves today in the displaced persons camps in Europe. I want to see Canada do her share in that, of course, but I should like to see those who do come to Canada brought here under the careful supervision of this government and of this parliament, and not under contract to any industrialist. I am definitely opposed to immigration by vested interests. Our group in this house are united in demanding a well-defined and comprehensive immigration policy that will be operated in the interests of the people of Canada and of the people who do come to Canada. We certainly cannot hold up our heads with pride in what we do unless the people who come to our shores come as free men and free women.
I am surprised in the extreme, Mr. Speaker, that the government of this country has permitted an industrialist to go over to Europe and to select, to screen by himself, to inspect or to arrange for inspection and obtain transportation for substantial groups of workers and bring them to this country in a comparatively short period of time. I have had considerable dealings with the Department of Immigration in an effort to open the door to desirable Europeans, and I find excuses being given all the time, excuses like this:	Oh, we cannot do anything now
because we have not the facilities for inspection; we have no facilities for gathering these people and seeing to it that they have no communicable diseases; furthermore, we cannot possibly get transportation to bring them here. That is what is said when applications are made to bring in men, women and children, relatives of those who originally came from Europe and have been good citizens of Canada for many years. I say it is a reflection on the government and it certainly is a condemnation of the lack of definite immigration policy, that these worthy people have been denied entry to our country while at the same time industrialists are able to go from this country to Europe and gather together the people they want and bring them here under special contract, and in a very short time. I am not at all satisfied that the sort of thing that is being done by the member for Beauce is in any way in the interests of this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, while this is purely an immigration question and comes under the jurisdiction of that department, my department is to some degree tied up with the present immigration policy. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke this afternoon of indentured labour and referred to conditions in Britain in 1906 under the Liberal party. No one knows better than my hon. friend that you cannot compare this policy with the conditions that existed in South Africa at that. time.


Major James William Coldwell: I am talking of the principle of indentured labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking of the same thing. I have a vivid recollection of what happened in 1906.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: So have I. I was there, and I know it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was in Great Britain at that time. This is just a red herring that my hon. friend draws across the trail-purely propaganda.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Socialist nonsense.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not use it in that way.


Humphrey Mitchell: You cannot blow hot and cold on this thing. People in this country who are great champions of the displaced persons in Europe, when a move is made by this government, at once throw up a political smokescreen to destroy the policy set in motion.


Mr. LOW:: This is not a policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can call it what, you like.
Labour Conditions


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We appreciate a proper policy.


James Horace King: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks of slavery and the Polish people in these displaced persons camps. Why do they not want to go back to Poland? Let him ask himself that question.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to send them back from this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I listened to my hon. friend when he was making his speech; I did not interrupt him when he talked about the Polish people. I agreed with him that we should not take too seriously what we see in the newspapers. The other fellow has a right to be heard. My hon. friend, who has a sense of justice, should have at least waited a couple of days and held the inquest when the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) was in his seat.


Major James William Coldwell: I expected that he would be here.


Mr. KNOWLES:: He is a member of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: He is a member of this house; his place is here today.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has he permission to be absent all this time?


Humphrey Mitchell: He got back only yesterday.


Mrs. STRUM:: How long has he been away?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend had travelled as many miles as the hon. member in question has travelled, she would not be here either. There are people in the House of Commons who have something else to do besides play politics.


Major James William Coldwell: He was elected to do a job in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was he on government business?


Humphrey Mitchell: You can't take it. You were in Winnipeg a week attending a convention.


James Horace King: Order. I would remind hon. members that an hon member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The minister is drawing a red herring across the trail.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is an element of what we sometimes call British justice. I am convinced of this, when the hon. member is

here and after hon. members have listened to his side of the question they will not be so severe as they have been in the last few days.
My hon. friend talked of precedents. I do not think there is a precedent for the displaced persons camps in our lifetime. When we bring these people to Canada in large groups the government has some responsibility.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what we have been saying.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am glad to hear my hon. friends say "hear, hear."


Major James William Coldwell: Assume that responsibility.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have some responsibility in that regard.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What are you doing about it?


Mr. IRVINE:: What are the responsibilities?


James Horace King: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my genial friend from Cariboo will keep quiet for five minutes we shall get along in what I am trying to do. I think we have some responsibility in this regard. Recently under the jurisdiction of my department there was a movement of Polish soldiers from Great Britain and Italy. In connection with that, of course, there was an understanding. You can call it a contract if you wish. There was an understanding. Why should there be an understanding? I do not know what this contract is at the moment.


Major James William Coldwell: You should.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know I should know everything, but unlike the hon. member I do not. There was an understanding. When you bring people into this country in the mass or in large groups there is responsibility on the government of the day.
Take my hon. friend's province of Saskatchewan.


An hon. MEMBER:: You take it.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, you take it; I do not want it. You may have it. My hon. friend knows there was a recent case of ill treatment of a Polish soldier in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: I do, yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Fortunately it is the only instance that has come to my attention since the movement of these men to Canada.

Labour Conditions
but we have some responsibility to that young Polish soldier to see that he is placed on another farm where he will be assimilated into the life of this country.


Major James William Coldwell: He was not under a contract to stay where he was.


Humphrey Mitchell: You cannot blow hot and cold on this thing; you have to assume some responsibility. How did these people come into Canada under the terms of the order jn council? It is perfectly clear that they came here under the minimum wage laws existing in Quebec. Let me say this about wages. I do not know what it costs to live in this town of St. Georges in Quebec. Do not forget this: I have been a high wage man all my life: I think that is well known in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister say "highway"?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say this to my hon. friend-


Major James William Coldwell: I thought better of the minister than that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to say to my reverend friends and school teachers across the tray that at least I worked in industry for my living.


Major James William Coldwell: The rest of us did.


Humphrey Mitchell: When I left Hamilton I belonged to an organization that was the highest paid of its class in the trade in the dominion. I have always been a high wages man; I believe in it. But do not forget that wages are relative, as I shall indicate before I get much farther. I do not know what it costs to live in St. Georges. I am not defending the minimum wage laws of the province of Quebec, not for one minute. But I would guarantee that the cost of living in that community is somewhat different from what it is in New York city or in the city of Montreal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or in Ottawa.


Humphrey Mitchell: Or even in Ottawa, as my hon. friend know-3 quite well. What is the policy? My hon. friend talked about precedents. What, is the policy of the British government in this regard? It is not any different from our own.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it is; the trades unions are helping to bring these people in.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute.


Major James William Coldwell: No one comes in without the consent of the trades unions.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let the record speak for itself. May I say this about the trade unions
and the criticism which has been directed to my department and the department of immigration in connection with this matter, and about some of the statements made over the air by a half-wit who sits in this gallery. What was said yesterday afternoon does not add anything to the problem.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Which gallery?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let. us take the question of a contract.


Major James William Coldwell: Why attack a man who cannot reply?


Humphrey Mitchell: He attacked me yesterday afternoon when I could not reply.


Major James William Coldwell: I heard it. I thought it was a defence of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are attacking
Dionne when he is not in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: He ought to be here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He should be in the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your own men were away at Winnipeg for ten days.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Half the C.C.F. are away today.


Major James William Coldwell: Look around you and see how many of your own followers are away.


Mr. McCANN:: Ring the bell and see where they are.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ring the bell.


Major James William Coldwell: Four complete rows of empty seats.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You were beaten last week; you just cannot take it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hold in my hand a leaflet for issue to displaced persons of the British Minister of Labour and National Service which reads:
Volunteer scheme for recruitment of displaced persons for employment in Great Britain.


Major James William Coldwell: This is from whom?


Humphrey Mitchell: The British Ministry of Labour.


Major James William Coldwell: Not some employer?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, the British Ministry of Labour.


Mr. MARTIN:: A socialist government.


Humphrey Mitchell: I read:
Conditions of work and rates of pay. The general range of weekly time rates of wages for unskilled men in Great Britain varies according to the occupation from 80s. to about 10-Os-
Labour Conditions


Major James William Coldwell: A week.


Humphrey Mitchell: A week. I continue:
-and for skilled men from about 90s. to about 120s., for unskilled women the range is about 50s. to 65s. Skilled workers in a number of industries are paid at piece rates which enable the average worker to earn more than the mini; mum time rates. Normal full-time hours of work generally Tange from 41 to 18 hours per week.
In the ease of female domestic workers in hospitals and similar institutions in England and Wales, the minimum wage is 61s. for a forty-eight hour week, with a deduction of 23s. a week for food, accommodation and laundry, leaving a cash balance of Ids. In Scotland the deduction for food and accommodation is 25s., leaving a cash balance of 39s. If my hon. friends wish to do so, they will be able to work that out for themselves; 1 think the rate of exchange is about $1 to the pound. These are the conditions of entry. Workers will enter Great Britain for an initial period of twelve months subject to good behaviour and to the specific condition that they undertake only employment selected by the Ministry of Labour and National Service


Major James William Coldwell: By the Ministry of Labour!


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. That is just what we are doing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: No; that is just what we object to.


Humphrey Mitchell: -and on the clear understanding that they will only be allowed to change their employment with the consent of that department.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is getting pretty close to indentured labour, I would say.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no; that is the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: What difference does it make whether it is the government or anybody else? When we are talking about freedom, let us be frank about it. You cannot have a socialist freedom and another kind of freedom.


Major James William Coldwell: What kind of freedom is this?


William Irvine: What is the minister reading from?


Humphrey Mitchell: This period of permitted stay will be extended further if the individual complies with the employment conditions set out immediately above and behaves as a worthy member of the British community.

There you are. I do not think there is a great deal of difference. Mind you, I am not offering any criticism of that. I am here; they are there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will never be over here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. That is too plain for my hon. friends to understand. I believe that we have an obligation in this country, particularly with regard to these mass movements which at the moment are necessary from the displaced persons camps in Germany. I am one of those who believe in people emigrating under their own steam. I came to this country under my own steam.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. Some of my state-planning friends who preach pie in the sky do not understand the realities of life. I was one of nine children-if I may be allowed to make this personal reference-and my father died when I was eleven years of age. I came to this country when I was eighteen. I never took a nickel from anybody in this country, and I went to work the day after I got here. I did not go to some theological college.


Major James William Coldwell: Neither did I.


Humphrey Mitchell: I went to work as did my hon. friend. It is a disadvantage, in my judgment, when you have-as we have today -in any country or any clime, immigration en masse. When these people get to the new country they are different from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and myself, who went out to work and made our own way in life. The first thing they do is to form an organization and pass a resolution, "Therefore be it resolved" that somebody else do the resolving.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do say this, Mr. Speaker-whether you like it or not-that this nation has been built by people who came to Canada irrespective of race, colour or creed, under the conditions I have just mentioned.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Not to work at twenty-five cents an hour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Probably the hon. member has never done a day's work in his life.


James Herbert Matthews: That is what you think.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Herbert Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I want that remark withdrawn.

Labour Conditions


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member if he rises to a question of privilege or to a point of order.


James Herbert Matthews: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to a point of privilege. I ask that the remark just made be withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which one?


James Herbert Matthews: The one to the effect that I never did an honest day's work in my life. I demand a withdrawal of that, Mr. Speaker.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether you got me correctly. What I should have said was, "before you came into this house".


James Herbert Matthews: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the minister that before I ever came into this house I worked as hard as he ever did and perhaps a lot harder. These hands of mine have had callouses on them from the work I did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Herbert Matthews: Any callouses the minister had were not on his hands.


James Horace King: Order. I do not believe that the conduct of the members of the House of Commons just now is such as to make a contribution to the debate. I would ask hon. members to address the Speaker and to be silent when another hon. member has the floor. If anyone wishes to interrupt and ask a question, he should first rise in his place and ask permission to do so.


James Herbert Matthews: As a matter of privilege, I ask for the withdrawal of that remark.


James Horace King: Order. We have listened to the hon. gentleman. If he wants to rise to a point of order or a question of privilege, he should do so, state it briefly and resume his seat.


James Herbert Matthews: With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I did, and I am still waiting for the remark to be withdrawn. I asked for that on a point of order.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: What do you want
withdrawn?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Callouses.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not withdrawn; they are cut off.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Humphrey Mitchell: To keep peace in the family, Mr. Speaker, after seeing my hon.
friend's hands I withdraw any implication I might have made against him. However, I think I am entitled to make my speech without these interruptions-although, mind you,
I enjoy them.


An hon. MEMBER:: So do we.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not like some people who can dish it out but can't take it. I enjoy it. But I do say this, Mr. Speaker, by the very nature of things we must in every way possible protect these people who are coming from Europe. I believe that every province in Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island has fair wage laws. The order in council which permitted these girls to enter the province of Quebec and work in Beauce recognizes the jurisdiction of these minimum wage laws.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Will the minister permit a question about the order in council?


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the question only for the purpose of obtaining information. On April 1, 1947, an order in council, P.C. 1193, was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen):
. . . that as there is a shortage of textile workers in Canada, the provisions of order in council P.C. 695, dated March 24, 1931, ... be waived in behalf of one hundred immigrants as herein described.
Those are the one hundred textile workers. It has been stated that similar applications have been made by other industrial concerns. Has any other order in council been passed waiving the order in council of 1931 which would deny these persons admission to Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the last one?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: And the only order in council?


Humphrey Mitchell: As far as I know. I am almost convinced of it, but I will say it is the only one as far as my memory' serves me, if my hon. friend will accept that for now.


John George Diefenbaker: There has not been one since April 1?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not trying to mislead my friend; not intentionally', anyway. To get back to my argument, as I say the girls in question are being brought to Canada within the four corners of our immigration legislation. As the order in council states,
Labour Conditions

the prevailing rates of wages, as laid down by the minimum wage laws of the province of Quebec, will apply; and as I believe I indicated a short while ago every province of Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island has legislation of that description. It may be unfortunate that it has become necessary, as they have found in Great Britain, to move people from these displaced persons camps in groups. No one knows the difficulties and complications of an undertaking of that kind. The emotions of people from one end of this country to the other are aroused by such a policy. That is inescapable, but I am convinced that these girls certainly have found a better home in Beauce that they had in Germany. It was my privilege to visit those parts of Europe in peace time, and I know something of the conditions that existed in eastern Europe at that time. Yesterday, I think it was, one of these girls told a newspaper man she had a varicose vein caused by pulling a plough. Women do not do those things in any province of Canada, to my knowledge; nor do they do those things on the continent of North America. By the pictures this morning I noticed that these girls were well dressed, and I understand the clothing was provided by their employer.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The men won't even push a plough.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, too.
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are under an obligation to pull our weight on the oar in connection with the movement of these displaced persons from Europe. Let me say . also that people of my own blood are concerned about immigration into this country of people of British stock. At the moment the door is wide open; let us be frank and honest about that. Let us not throw out a smoke-screen in connection with these unfortunate people by suggesting that we are treating one race in one way and another race in another. All they have to do is get passage from Great Britain, and provided they are healthy they can come to Canada. The same applies to South Africa, Australia, New' Zealand and the United States; and I think the country should know that. When you begin to move people, however, there is always objection. When you move the Poles, some other racial group objects. When you move tlie Jews, some other racial group says, "We should not have Jews in this country." When you move the Ukrainians or any other European group, somebody in this dominion, under a free press and freedom of speech, will take objection. I believe we have to be big about this thing, that we must be humane about it, 
and take these people out of real slavery and let. them be absorbed an l assimilated into the life of this dominion. That is what, my hon. friend urged at the united nations. I know quite well that if he w'ere in charge of the immigration policy of this country there would be people who would criticize, from their own points of view', any policy he might set in motion. I have had many wires, as all members and ministers get wires, in connection with the movement of these displaced persons to this country. They are all couched in the same language; and those of us who understand the labour movement know something about the phraseology used by these people who think anyone who is not a communist is a fascist; and that goes for every party in this house. If our judgment is to be influenced by such people, how are we to fashion an immigration policj'?
I hope that when the history of this movement of this year and next year is reviewed we may find that these Polish soldiers who fought so nobly on the side of the allies during the war have been absorbed into the life of this country; and that goes for all the displaced persons that we are ready to receive into our family circle. So let us argue it on that basis. Let us argue from a humanitarian point of view and get it on that plane, so that after the years have rolled by these people. like tens of thousands of others in Canada, will be able to say they are glad they came here and worked their way and raised and educated their families.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And didn't grouse about the country all the time, either.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course not. I am
not unmindful of the forces in this and every other democratic country, whether it be Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain or the United States, that are working to create confusion of the worst kind. Those of us who have been raised in that atmosphere know something about it.. So today I would ask hon. members to suspend judgment in the case of the member for Beauce until he is here to answer for himself in this high court of parliament. I do not know the hon. member intimately, but I have spoken to him and he always struck me as a kindly person, as a high type of Canadian. Viewed in the light of conditions as they exist at the moment, his judgment and our judgment may have been shortsighted; I don't know.
I do not believe it was, but we should not take a short, view of this thing. Let us wait a year or two and see the position of these girls in our society at that time. For goodness sake don't throw cold water on every English-

Labour Conditions
man, Irishman and Scotsman who wants to come to Canada, or on every Jew, every Ukrainian, every Pole or other European who wants to come to this country. Let us be big and broad about this question of immigration. I believe the vast majority of the people of Canada want to assume all their obligations in connection with these displaced persons in Europe.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has spoken about the lumber operators. Let me tell him that there will be immigration officials and officials of my own to do the screening. That has already been arranged. Let me say this, too-and I have said it before-that nothing my department will do will consciously endanger the wage standards of Canadian workingmen.
I know some of those people at the head of the lakes who have been making statements in the last few days. They are not members of the Progressive Conservative party; they are not members of the C.C.F.; they are not members of the Social Credit party or of the Liberal party. They are members of another party. Perhaps that is some indication why these Polish people and people from other countries in Europe do not want to go back to the place from which they came. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) knows about the Ukrainians; he knows that people from Germany do not want to go back to the place they came from. He knows it, and every hon. member in the house knows it. No; they want to come here where there is a measure of real freedom, notwithstanding the expression of opinion of any member of the House of Commons or any person in Canada. They want to come here where there is an opportunity to live their lives in an atmosphere of freedom- freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, those great freedoms which have made this country what it is.
I would ask in conclusion that we suspend judgment on the hon. member for Beauce until he has had his day in court.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few worda with respect to the motion before the house; and in doing so let me say at the outset that I speak for myself only.
If my memory serves me correctly the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F., has not so far risen in his place and spoken on the subject of immigration. I presume he felt that that question was too dangerous politically to tackle


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Anthony Hlynka: -from whatever side you take it, so he delegated some of the lesser lights in his group to take up this question. Of course he was just watching the developments.	*


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. First of all, I did speak on immigration. And may I say this, that this is not a one-man party, and when one of this group leads off on a particular topic he speaks for all of us, myself included. But I spoke on it. Let me say again that this is not a one-man party.


Anthony Hlynka: It is true that the leader of a group has the right to assign certain topics to his followers; but what I would point out is that the leader of the C.C.F. considered the question of immigration less important than his present motion.


Major James William Coldwell: Rubbish.


Mr. MacINNIS:: He spoke on it.


Major James William Coldwell: I spoke on immigration, as a matter of fact.


Anthony Hlynka: Let me continue with my remarks, and hon. members may rise in their places and speak for themselves, or, if they wish, contradict what I am saying. But I should like to say this, that if the leader of the C.C.F. had a sister, a daughter or a mother in. a displaced persons camp, he would not have made the motion. It is fine to stand in the House of Commons and criticize the government for the little which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and one or two other ministers have done in agreeing to bring in a few of these people to Canada. But the fact remains that the question of displaced persons is one of the most acute questions facing the United States government, the British government, or any other government which has anything to do with this matter.
The leader of the C.C.F., I presume after reading the statement made the other day by Mr. Mosher, and thinking it would be a popular stand to take in the House of Commons-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that that is untrue, the hon. member has no right to impute motives to any other member in the house. He is doing that, and I ask that it be withdrawn. That sort of thing is pretty contemptible.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) must not impute motives to any other member.
Labour Conditions


Anthony Hlynka: I have no intention of imputing motives, but I do presume that the leader of the C.C.F. must have read Mr. Mosher's statement.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact I have not.


Anthony Hlynka: It was exactly along the lines which the hon. member has adopted.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact I have not read it.


Angus MacInnis: Did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) read it as well?


Anthony Hlynka: If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has not read it, then it is a strange coincidence.
May I say at once that I am not defending the immediate immigration policy of the present government. I feel it has been at least a year and a half too late in any action it has taken. Therefore I say that I am not defending the government's immediate immigration policy. But I must say this, that if we have individuals within this nation who are willing to undertake to bring in a number of persons whom they can employ, then, I say, such individuals are rendering a great service, both to the displaced persons and to Canada.. And the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) from the very fact that he has undertaken to bring in about a hundred girls, has done so much for these people that I am certain his name is now known to every person in the displaced persons camps.
As I listened to the ramblings across the floor this afternoon, when hon. members were poking fun at one another while discussing this tragic issue, I concluded it was nothing to be proud of. This is one of the most tragic situations that has ever faced the defenceless and homeless people of Europe. And yet the leader of the C.C.F.-*


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: And the leader of the Social Credit party.


Anthony Hlynka: Will the hon. member allow me to speak for myself, please? I know that the C.C.F. group believe in dictating their views to everybody else, but I want to speak for myself. Perhaps it was the intention of the hon. member to throw me off my line of thought. Just the same, I think I can make clear what I have in mind.
If the leader of the C.C.F. were sincere in this issue he would have risen in his place and placed a proposition before the government asking it to pass an order in council to guarantee that these girls will not be underpaid. That would have been a noble stand on his part. He did not do that. Oh, no, he wanted
[The Deputy Speaker.]
to create an issue and raise the bogey of these people coming in, in order to hinder public opinion on the question of immigration. Hon. members who have constituents who have mothers, daughters, sons and other relatives in displaced persons camps have been endeavouring to prod the government ahead a little so that something might be done to protect these people. When the order in council was placed on Hansard we immediately heard the cry from the C.C.F. group. For two or three weeks they have been heckling the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). At first it looked as though they just wanted to find out from the minister certain information, but the fact remains that they are showing opposition to the relief of these unfortunate displaced persons. That is the stand of that group. For too long has that group been appealing to people of other than Anglo-Saxon origin for support. They have now shown their true colours as to where they stand on this issue.
I travelled through Europe for several months and I found that these people did not have a friend in the world. They have been moved around from place to place. It was admitted in the senate committee on immigration and labour that the directors of displaced persons camps had moved people from camp to camp as many as five times in three months, in order to force them to go back under soviet rule. It is an awful state of affairs when people are moved so often and made so miserable. As soon as they had built up their little churches in the camp, as soon as they had suitable places in which to sleep and study, as soon as they had places in which to teach their children, the order to move would come from headquarters run by gentlemen with the same mentality as those who are sponsoring this motion.


Mr. BURTON:: That is a lie.


Anthony Hlynka: I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his kind word. That was the first word that came to his mind and it indicates the range of his vocabulary. These people have been made so miserable for two years that it is time we had a few more Mr. Dionnes. I should like to see hon. members of various groups rise in their places and say that if the Dionne mills exploit these girls they will protest and demand that the government do something to protect their interests. But instead we are having the issue confused so that labour will not want to have these people come in. That is not the right thing to do. These displaced persons have no money, and surely it is a noble thing for some one in Canada to be willing to pay their fares in order to save these people. A certain

Labour Conditions
portion of their pay will be deducted, but that will work no hardship on them and in the meantime their lives will be saved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Anthony Hlynka: My friends can jibe. If they want to get me warmed up, I will get ready. The best of the displaced persons are being creamed off by the South American countries and others. If we do not hurry we shall not get the best type of people. I am glad that there are industrialists who want to bring in these people. It seems to me that by moving the present motion the C.C.F. group is taking a slap at private enterprise. Perhaps some hon. members did not notice it, because the motion was couched in such a way that they felt it was a good thing to support it. But the facts of the situation are that it is a slap at industry for trying to bring in these people,. As far as I am concerned I want to congratulate industry upon trying to bring in these people.
In the British zone in Germany people are supposed to be fed 1.550 calories a day, that is, members of the adult working population. However, in reality the military authorities and UNRRA have been forced to cut that down to between 1,000 and 1,100 calories a day, which is one-third of the calories required by a working man. Can we let these people starve? Can we let them be faced with slow starvation? Surely we must take them out.-In the United States zone they would like to feed the people 2.000 calories a day, but in reality they are able to give them only from 1,500 to 1.600 calories a day, just one-half of what a normal adult requires to keep healthy.
If anyone agrees to bring in one or 100 or 1,000 of these persons it would be only right to let him do so. I asked the head of the camp at Hanover where I visited, how many children there were in the camp. He told me there were 900. Then I asked about their health and he told me that ninety-three out of the 900 were T.B. cases. I think hon. members will agree that that is a high proportion. Are we to sit back and attack the minister for allowing a few of these people to come in and thus reduced the problem in Europe?
It is in the interests of Great Britain; it is in the interests of the United States; it is in the interests of Canada to reduce the displaced persons problem as quickly as possible. You cannot sign a peace treaty with Austria and leave displaced persons there. You cannot sign a peace treaty with Germany and leave displaced persons there. The pre-war population of the United States zone of Germany, if my memory serves me correctly, was 13,000,000 people, but today, on account of
the number of Germans who have been expelled from the territory held by Poland and Czechoslovakia, there are 18,000,000 people. That area simply cannot support that population.
The food required by some of the displaced persons in the British zone is derived from German sources. Surely we should realize that. I cannot understand how mature men -some of them are at least big enough physically-cannot see through the problem and hope to have this European problem solved. Surely it is about time they studied the situation. Time is running on; this is one of the most acute problems of today, and it must be solved.
A number of my constituents and others whom I know across this country have asked for my assistance in trying to get permission from the government to bring in their children and other relatives. A few months ago I asked the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Glen) for permission for certain people to come to Canada. The thing dragged on for months and months. Today I have three letters on my desk saying I need no longer bother because the three girls who were to be brought into Canada are dead. I could give you their names, Mr. Speaker. This is not something to wrangle and joke over in the house; it is serious.
I sincerely congratulate the Minister of Labour and other ministers who have consulted with him on having agreed to issue permits to bring in some of these displaced persons. The lives of these unfortunates are so miserable that I plead with hon. members and .with all groups in the house not to use this issue cheaply, not just play around with it, because it is too tragic.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to deal particularly with one point on speaking to the motion moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). However, since he took his seat there have occurred in this debate a number of incidents to which I wish to refer before proceeding with what I had intended to say.
May I say this-and I say it with a considerable degree of sadness-that I regret that any member of this house should consider it necessary for him to stoop to the depths of misrepresentation and misinformation that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Anthony Hlynka: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw
Labour Conditions

his remark that I misrepresented anything. Having seen these people, I know the problem a little better than the hon. gentleman does.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw:


Joseph William Burton: In support of my statement, I have in my hand Hansard of Tuesday, February 11, of this session, where at page 330, my leader had this to say:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):	Mr. Speaker, I am going to join those tonight who have expressed regret that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) has not presented something of a policy to the house, when we are discussing the important measure which is before us. I think the time has come when this country should have a policy in regard to immigration, and more particularly that phase of immigration to which Canada is committed by her signature, namely the relief of those persons in displaced persons camps in Europe, who are known as refugees and sufferers from the war.
That, I think, is sufficient to support the statement I made, and I shall not withdraw my remark. Any person who is so busy tiying to think up ways and means of devising twists and turns to slander those with whom he does not agree is using words that are not worth the paper they are written on.
Mr. IlLYNKA: Let the people read them. Mr. BURTON:	I have nothing to be
ashamed of in the stand taken by my leader and this group on this or any other question that we have debated. I realize that some hon. members do not agree with what we from time to time advocate, and I take off my hat to them and acknowledge they have a perfect right to their opinions, but I deny to them and anyone else the right to question our motives.
I was astounded to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) endeavour to explain the government's immigration policy. I am sure that, by the time he was through, the people of this country will be just as much confused over the government's policy as they were before, if not more so. The minister said that we were attacking a man who was not in the house to defend himself. We are attacking no man. We are attacking the policy of the government which makes possible things of this kind. If the hon. member is not present today I should like to know why he is absent.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is cheap.


Joseph William Burton: I have my responsibility
to be here and so have other members. But it is not the man who is guilty; it is the government whose policy makes these things
(Mr. Hlynka.]
possible. I will go farther and say that apparently, under the government's so-called immigration policy, this is the only way you can get anything done for the refugees. Otherwise there has been no action at all.
The Minister of Labour referred to the Polish soldiers who were brought into this country under the jurisdiction of his department. When mention was made of one of them who was ill-treated in Saskatchewan-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: That whole
province is ill-treated, with the government they have.


Joseph William Burton: If the hon. member for
Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) would listen a little more and keep that other organ shut a little more he might learn something. Apparently the Department of Labour had no way of finding out- what was being done to some of these Polish soldier immigrants, because no action was taken until the case was finally dragged into the courts. Apparently this unfortunate immigrant had nowhere to appeal until things came to such a pass that he could lay a criminal charge. It was only then that the Department of Labour acted. I say that that is not good enough.
I wish to have it distinctly understood that I am just as much in favour of having- as many people from the displaced persons camps in Europe brought into this country as any other hon. member. In fact I consider it a disgrace to this country that we have not thousands of them in at this time. These people should have been brought in and given sanctuary under a proper government plan. I am distinctly opposed to any industrialist or corporation being allowed-or, as it appears now, being the agents of the government- to bring people in to work under contract labour. I contend that we have had experiences enough in the past to be a warning to the government that this en bloc immigration is not desirable when it is brought about by people who can make use of them for their own selfish ends. Especially do I object to that apparently being the government's only policy under which we can help these people in the displaced persons camps. When we find, as I have no doubt other hon. members have-and I would not be surprised if every hon. member has had considerable correspondence from people in his own constituency who are endeavouring to bring people over from the central European countries- people writing us letters about their relatives in Europe we have to stop and think. I have had letters from people in my own constituency who have been endeavouring to bring relatives over from France, Czechoslovakia,

Labour Conditions
Austria, Hungary, Germany and all the other countries of continental Europe. These people have been willing to undertake that they will take care of their relatives in displaced persons camps, but they simply cannot get any action from the immigration branch.


Mr. PROBE:: You cannot get an answer to a letter.


Joseph William Burton: I have in my files hundreds of letters from people in my constituency who have been trying for the past three years and more to get people from the displaced persons camps, but there is no action. I will cite one as an example. This man wrote me a letter and later he came to see me. He had been in correspondence with the immigration branch for months, and after he came to see me I took the matter up with them on his behalf again. This man had a niece who was born in Czechoslovakia. She was the only living person left in the family. The only relative she had was her uncle in this country. All the other members of that family had been killed during the time that the German army overran that part of Czechoslovakia. At the time this girl was between sixteen and seventeen years of age. She wandered from pillar to post and from one part of the country to the other until finally she landed in Sweden. There, either through the Red Cross or UNRRA, I forget which, she was able to establish contact with her uncle who was living in my constituency. As I say, that man had for months and months tried to get action. Since then, more than a year has gone by and there is still no action.
Just the other day I received a letter from a friend of mine who, by the way, was himself an immigrant from England years ago. He wrote on behalf of another person who emigrated to this country from Hungary. Mter a considerable amount of correspondence with the immigration branch, the other day this man received a letter from the Winnipeg office of the immigration branch as follows:
Dear Sir:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of May 7 in connection with your application for the admission to Canada of Mr. and Mrs. John Weiss and Mr. and Mrs. Peter Reiter and family.
Your applications were acceptable at the time they were submitted but the immigration regulations have since been amended and, as your relatives are of enemy alien citizenship, their admission to Canada cannot be authorized at the present time.
At the time their applications were submitted, the immigration branch says that they were acceptable. I want to read a few lines R3166-235
from a letter of the man who wrote me and sent me a copy of the letter I just read. He said:
. . . the fact that these people are a son and grandchildren of a Canadian who came to Canada and was a pioneer of this district, 1906, his homestead was-
He gave the location of it.
-where he lived and died but not before receiving his citizenship papers. Mr. Weiss the applicant for entry of his brother is living on and farming this land today and will turn dwelling and land over to his brother as a home immediately he is allowed to enter Canada. He will as also stated give bonds or any required security guaranteeing these people will not become a public charge in any way.
I contend that when citizens of this country who have proven thmselves to be honest and worthy citizens are trying to obtain permission to have relatives of their own come to Canada and are prepared to go bond for them and cannot obtain that permission but find every turn that they make tangled up with a snarl of red tape and the immigration branch bogged down with a bunch of rulings so that no one seems to know what to do, it is time that we protested. When conditions such as that exist I protest against the fact that the government by order in council can set aside a previous order in council and authorize certain industrialists to bring people in for their own benefit.
This morning I read in the paper that some of these girls were interviewed and are alleged to have said that they looked on Mr. Dionne as a benefactor. I say, Mr. Speaker, that when we go to any length-and I contend that we should go much farther and faster than we have gone in bringing in people from displaced persons camps-to bring people into the country they should look to Canada and to the people of Canada as their benefactors, and not to certain individuals.
In closing, I should like to ask a few questions. I wonder how the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) likes what has been going on. Judging by what he has been saying in connection with this matter, I wonder how he can sit quietly by and see things of this kind going on. I ask all hon. members on the government side to stop and consider whether we have done our duty to displaced persons in the past. If they do that I am satisfied that their answer must be no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What country has done more?


Humphrey Mitchell: What country has done more?

Labour Conditions


Joseph William Burton: As a nation we should get busy and do something about the matter. We should do it as a nation, and not have to depend on individuals.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he deny that this nation took a lead at the united nations assembly in trying to bring about an international organization that would bring perhaps more relief to the displaced persons than any other known method or organization, and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation took part, along with other hon. members, in that suggestion? No other country has a better record in this regard than has Canada.


Joseph William Burton: In answer to the minister's question, if you can call it a question, I will say that had the united nations organization accepted the plan submitted by Canada, I am quite prepared to admit that we would have had a much more effective immigration policy in that respect. The minister at least was a little fairer than the hon. member for Vegre-ville, because the hon. member for Vegreville criticized the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar for doing what he did. We in this group are proud of the fact that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did whatever he possibly could, as a member of the Canadian delegation, to encourage that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And so did the government of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: But they did not carry it out.


Joseph William Burton: I want to tell the minister this, that if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar were sitting on that side, leading the government, and found that the united nations had not been prepared to go along the way that the Canadian delegation had asked them to go, he would have asked his government to carry out that obligation in so far as Canada was concerned, to the limit of its ability. That is my answer to the minister's question. I say to the government: You have not done what you could do, and this makes you guilty of a crime, having regard to the fact that these people at the present time are dying without someone extending a helping hand to them. It puts you in this position, that apparently the only effort made in this country to help the people in the displaced persons camps who are coming to this country is when some industrialists are prepared to do it. As I said, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion that is not good enough.
I regret that I took up more time than I had originally intended to take.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph William Burton: It may not suit some members on the government side.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: We do not care.


Joseph William Burton: I would say this much, that the time has come when we must pull the mask off some of the people who profess to believe in freedom of speech in this country. All I ask is that we look at this question and deal with it in a proper manner; and if w*e have any criticisms to make about the attitude of any other persons toward it, the least we can do is to be truthful.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I do not wish, by silence, to give consent to this style of contract. I am not interested in criticizing the government, because the same head-on collisions and conditions of affairs with regard to these industries prevailed after the last great war and have resulted after all the wars. Business has been upset, and we have had industrial destruction and the evils of industrial cut-throat competition and all that kind of thing. I am interested in seeing that the proper safeguards are placed in this labour contract.
In the first place, we had the very same kind of conditions after the last war. Cheap, shoddy Japanese goods were coming into this country. Many goods came in here, notwithstanding the tariff of the United States and the countries in Europe. The result was that an Alien Labour Act was passed in this country by a Conservative administration. Another Conservative administration appointed a committee of the House of Commons, known as the Stevens committee on price spreads and mass buying, the report of which was later adopted and evils adjusted. That committee found that a dreadful state of affairs existed in the textile industry and many of the other industries, and in some of the largest stores. It held many sittings and brought in a report. Safeguards were recommended to parliament. I think some of them were adopted by the present government and some by the late government headed by Mr. Bennett.
How does this particular contract come about? I ask that question simply for information. I sympathize greatly with the government in having to solve these problems which have grown out of the war and for which we in the House of Commons are to some extent responsible. In the first place, we have had the Alien Labour Act placed on the statute books of this country. What for? To protect us in case of peace or of war. to protect our industries and both capital and labour. The responsibilitity for the enforcement of the law is on not only the federal government but the provincial attorneys gen-

Labour Conditions
eral as well. This Alien Labour Act is a federal statute, but as I see the operation of it, the enforcement is on the dominion and on the provinces as well. I do not like the method and manner in which the contract before us for this industry has been proposed and entered into. I have for many years, in peace and war alike, espoused the cause of the Polish nation. I believe I have on many occasions brought to the attention of this house the sufferings of that great nation in the last great war and also in the one which has just closed. I am not objecting to a reasonable number of these refugees being brought into this country, because it is at the request of the British government. The United States has done little or nothing up to date, but I understand that the President-who has had a large number of important matters to deal with-has now consented to take 100,000 refugees into that country.
I wish to point out some of the other features in connection with this contract. First of all, I believe it is improvident from the point of view of the poor girls who are coming out to this country. They will no doubt make good citizens. I have known a great many Polish people in our city and in other places, and I have no criticism at all to make of them. They have always been good citizens and most of them or nearly all have never been in any trouble. I also want to point out to the government that the textile industry-and this contract deals with a particular branch of it in the province of Quebec 

was one of the matters dealt with by the Stevens inquiry. If you are to allow contracts with regard to priorities in shipping, ocean and air, to be made in connection with this particular industry, are you to repeat that for every other industry that wants a cheaper form of labour from Europe and Asia? You will have a large number of these applications. There are some thirty or forty different nationalities, according to the "Canada Year Book," who will want equality of treatment. The same treatment which is given the Polish girls in one industry in the province of Quebec will have to be extended to other races as it is for refugees as to farming and logging. Many of those who come in have no practical experience in these industries. Some have admitted, since they came in, that they have not any experience in farming or in logging. If hon. members will read report No. 6 of the senate committee on evidence given before it re immigration and labour, they will find that what I say is correct. Some admit they were never engaged in farming or logging.
The next point I wish to make is that, in an economic sense, industry in England is in the most awful state it has ever been in at any time in the history of the country since the industrial revolution, the textile industry included. The people of England have lost their foreign investments. They are losing their cotton trade with India. The United States has taken their place. Today much of industry has collapsed and is practically ruined in the old country. Many of those engaged in it are leading skilled people whom we should have had in the textile and other skilled industries in this country. I would point out that some of the heads of Eaton's and Simpson's, some of their departmental managers, and many of the directors of other great industries in this country, have come from Belfast in Ireland, from Scotland, Wales and England and made a success here. I find that some of them later, on promotion, became heads of these great industries and departmental stores in this country. I just mention that to show that, while the proposal is to bring in people from almost every other country on the same basis and grant a contract on different priorities, we are forgetting all about our own people in the old land, in Great Britain, at a time when they are down and out. We forget all about the fact that they could meet the need in many of these industries and do the very work which we want done, as leaders and developers, in the great industrial development which this country should have after the war and in the period of reconversion. Also girls for nursing and as housekeepers and maids are wanted. Are we to allow these people to go to Australia and New Zealand? There they are getting assisted passages to work in textile woollen industries. This form of assisted passage in this Quebec contract is one which I do not like, under which you are going to take out of the pay envelope a certain amount of money for the passage and a certain amount more for clothing, leaving a mere pittance for the individual to live on. You will remember that one of the abuses mentioned in the Stevens report was that under these somewhat cheap labour conditions some people were not able to make enough to pay for their food, and were starving on a pittance of wages. Many of them could not get a loaf of bread in the house under the intolerable conditions which were revealed in that report, and as a result changes had to be made.
I am not here to justify anything that has been done in this member's Quebec contract, and certainly I would not try to justify these
Labour Conditions

contracts. The responsibility is upon the government of the day. If this policy is going to interfere with competitive labour; if it is going to lead to cut-throat competition between this company and other companies throughout Canada who get no similar or adequate protection along these lines, I say the responsibility is upon the government. We have an Alien Labour Act which these other companies must obey. They must conform to dominion labour laws, provincial laws and all the rest of it, and they can get no labour aid from the mother country at all on account of the lack of shipping. I know of two or three industries which have been trying to bring in a few people from the old country, but they cannot get them. The premier of Ontario has just returned and told us there are a hundred thousand in England who would like to come to this country but who cannot get shipping accommodation.
I regret that our very fine minister of immigration has been ill. It is no wonder, with all the hard work he has had to do in connection with this troublesome and other after-war problems. I sympathize with the government in that respect, because the ministers are bearing a heavy burden in connection with these after-war problems. But I do say there should be some equality of treatment in regard to shipping accommodation, and we should bring skilled workers from Britain before it is too late. Many industries in this country would like to have labour of this kind, such as this Quebec company got the government to aid them to bring in, to enable them to undersell their competitors, because this great textile industry is very much diversified today, and was largely expanded as a result of the war. So I plead with the government not to forget about the mother country, which has been a pioneer in this kind of textile work since the industrial revolution, and to aid those skilled in it there, who are out of work, to come here. Many people in Britain would take a chance and come to this country today if they could get accommodation and shipping; but here we are sitting around forgetting all about them; and we see very little in the press and hear very little over the radio about the suffering in that country. They are suffering more than anyone else. Many thousands would like to emigrate to Australia and New Zealand because they believe that to be a white man's country where they would have a fair chance, in the woollen textile and other industries there, to carry on after the great battle they put up in England. Conditions there are far worse than after the battle of Britain. The
working classes are starving at the present time, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary. If you do not believe that, just read the British papers; read the white paper that was tabled in the British House of Common, and see the condition of affairs there. The suffering in that country is deplorable.
I should like to see proper safeguards included in the contracts we have been discussing today. I call upon the minister of labour of the province of Quebec as well as our own Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to take the necessary steps to protect these girls who suffered so much during the war. We in this country were very fortunate; we did not suffer an invasion. It is true that during the first two and a half years of the war we were pretty close to it, and our own province of Quebec and the maritimes and Ontario might have know what it meant to be invaded, but fortunately we escaped. So we should have some regard for those who suffered so much, and I urge that these workers should receive some further contract protection. I believe the contracts are ultra vires under the Alien Labour Act. If it were looked into I believe it would be found that the contracts should have been made with the government, not with any private individual or firm. When a contract is made with a member of parliament it borders on the rights and privileges of members of this house. The member may lose his seat over it, because he cannot make a contract or be party to any contract containing consideration with the government of the day or any department of the government or any commission connected therewith. I believe that is a fair interpretation of the law as it stands; and I think it is going pretty far from that act when an industry has to rely upon influence, because no doubt some influence has been used; you cannot get shipping space without influence. I know; I have tried at some of the shipping companies to bring one or two individuals out here, and I have been told that their space is sold for nearly a year ahead. I believe that in many ways charity should begin at home. I have no doubt that the men and women who have come to Canada from all these other countries have made good citizens; I believe many others would do well here if they had the chance, and I do not oppose a reasonable number being brought in. But I believe the United States should have led the way, and here they are taking only one hundred thousand. We have made a start, but I do believe these girls should have all the protection and safeguards the government of the country can give them.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, for

Labour Condilions
the past four days I have been Acting Minister of Mines and Resources, so at the moment I am responsible for the administration of immigration policies of this government. Therefore I think I should say a few words in this debate, even though my background in immigration matters is not extensive.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-tovvn-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved the adjournment of the house in order to pillory another hon. member who has undertaken to move some displaced persons to this country. I should like to examine the position in the light of the government's immigration policy. In the first place, the government has announced that it is favourable to absorbing into this country our fair proportion of the population of the displaced persons camps in Europe. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has been one of the loudest advocates of that policy. At the united nations he advocated the formation of international committees to move these people from camps in Europe to various countries which are able to absorb them.
The government is favourable to the reception of a very considerable number of immigrants. I believe it is the wish of all parties in the house that an active immigration policy should be pursued, and with that in view the government has been liberalizing the immigration laws of this country for many months past. In January, order in council P.C. 371 was passed which considerably broadened the class of immigrants who could be received in this country. Among the classes to be admitted were "a farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farming employment"; "a person engaged in mining, lumbering or logging entering Canada to engage in assured employment in any one of such industries." The assured employment provision has been in all the liberalized regulations, the purpose being to see that immigrants brought here are assured a fair chance to establish themselves in this country. In spite of the liberalized regulations, however, immigrants have not been coming forward. In respect of persons in displaced persons camps, the reason is obvious. These people have no money, and there is no way in which they can get to Canada without assistance. There is no way in which they can conform to the requirements of the act, unless someone will undertake to employ them.


Mr. SKEY:: Would the minister permit a question? Does he think it gives the immigrants to this country a fair chance, when they are saddled with a payment over-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, you can ask these foolish questions after I get through.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: That is not foolish. These girls have to pay it, and it will take them years to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, in spite of the liberalized regulations, immigrants have not been coming to Canada. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) undertook to put into practice the liberalized immigration policies of the government. He undertook to provide transportation for people who could not themselves provide it. And he undertook to provide assured employment, as is required by the act.
A good deal has been said about the contract for these people. I have not seen the contract, and I think no other member in the house has seen it. And until we know something about it, I think it is premature to discuss the question as to whether or not it is a fair contract.
The hon. member for Beauce spoke to me about transportation. He explained his mission in Europe, and he explained that he was going there to select displaced persons who could reasonably be expected to be happy in the county of Beauce. He explained that it was a Catholic locality and that persons who settled there would be better off if they were members of the Catholic faith. He explained, too, that he had made provision for living accommodation. He had obtained a building which was operated by an order of the Catholic church, where the immigrants would be housed, fed and looked after until they could learn the language of the country. He wanted transportation. I asked him what kind of transportation, and he said he wanted the best transportation. He thought the best kind available was transportation by air. I explained that there were charter companies which could offer various types of accommodation, but he said he wanted the de luxe accommodation, and he suggested that the new aircraft operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines would be the class of accommodation that he wanted for these people. The result was that he made a contract with Trans-Canada Air Lines to send its luxury air liners to pick up these people. I may say that before these prospective immigrants were granted entry, they were screened by the immigration branch, medically examined, and found to be persons who would comply with the immigration laws.
They have now been transported to Beauce, and I think no one in the house would criticize the manner in which they have been treated up to this time. It has been suggested in the house that they are expected over a

Labour Conditions
period of two years to refund the cost of their transportation. I do not know whether that is so or not. I understood, from one statement I read in the press, that they were expected to refund a part of the transportation costs, and that may be so, or they may be expected to refund the full transportation costs.
However it may be, I see nothing extraordinary in that. These people, we must assume, were exceedingly anxious to come to Canada, exceedingly anxious to leave the camps in which they have been living. I have no doubt that they entered into the contract freely, if the contract provided that they should pay back their transportation moneys over a period of time. Whether the contract is enforceable or not, I shall leave to anyone in the house to determine. I presume that, if any one of these girls decides to move away from Beauce, no police officer is going after her to bring her back to serve out the contract. It is simply a civil contract, perhaps calling for the repayment of $300 over two years.
On the other hand, there is another side to the contract. It is that the hon. member for Beauce has undertaken to provide employment for these girls over a period of two years. That contract is enforceable; and, so far as the girls are concerned, I think it is a valuable contract.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you seen it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, and neither have you.


John George Diefenbaker: But you just tell us what the terms are, although a few minutes ago you said you did not know anything about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason I am sure of the terms is that the Immigration Act provided in respect of the Polish veterans, and in other comparable cases, that there will be assured maintenance for immigrants for a period of two years. And, knowing that the hon. member for Beauce was required to meet the regulations of the immigration branch, I can say with some certainty that the two-year provision is part of the agreement. I say that with much more certainty than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) can say that it is not part of the agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the minister knew more than the house does, because no information has been given.


Lionel Chevrier: He knows more than you do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have contributed your five cents worth; will you let me finish?


John George Diefenbaker: I asked a simple question, but the minister does not want to answer it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It is more than $300, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, you succeeded in your purpose, that of throwing me off my line of thought.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I asked a question; that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: You certainly like to play politics over there; you are expert at it.


John George Diefenbaker: The voice of authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In any event, the immigrants brought in by the hon. member for Beauce are now residents of Canada. As such they are entitled to the protection of the laws of Canada. If it is possible to grind down Canadians in employment in industry, then it may be possible to grind down these immigrants. But if it is not-I believe it is not-then I believe Canada has labour laws entirely adequate to maintain the Canadian standard of living. If that is so, the immigrants concerning whom we are now talking will have every protection those laws can afford.
No objection has been made in the house of the immigration of Polish veterans. May I point out that they, too, are under contract, and that the people who are employing them are under contract. That contract provides that the men will be employed for a period of two years, and also provides that they will remain in the employment covered by their contract for a period of two years.


Mr. GREEN:: There are no transportation charges against Polish veterans.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well why?-because someone paid the transportation charges of these men. In this case it happened to be the British government. Therefore there is no charge accruing.
Other displaced persons will, we hope, be brought to this country. Hon. members of the C.C.F. group probably would be quite happy to do nothing for at least a year, until the international agency charged with the movement of these people is able to function. And I am told that it is a year away. My hon. friend, the leader of the C.C.F., went to Lake Success and advocated that Canada should take displaced persons, and advocated that this international agency be asked to bring these persons to Canada. He is ready to give that great lip service to immigration and to the making happy of all displaced persons. In the meantime, displaced persons are not coming to

Labour Conditions
36S9
this country; they are going to other countries. Why are they going to other countries? They are going to other countries, because citizens of those countries are going to Europe to select immigrants suitable for their countries and are paying the cost of taking them to their countries, doubtless under contract.
It is all very well to advocate great reforms, to advocate that things should be done by some intangible person who does not exist at the moment; it is all very well to say that we are great humanitarians, that we will look after displaced persons if and when some international agency sends them to us, and that everyone should be happy. The hon. member for Beauce happened to be a realist. He believed that displaced persons should be brought to this country and he went over and got them and brought them here and paid for their coming. He has undertaken to look after them for two years. If that is a crime, then he deserves the pillorying that the C.C.F. party is attempting to give him today. But before accepting opposition criticism as valid, I should like to look at the accomplishment. I would rather hear the defence of the hon. member for Beauce of his position when he comes to this House of Commons.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a very simple subject to discuss, but every attempt has been made to confuse it. It has been suggested that we should wait until the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is here so that we can discuss the matter with him. We are not concerned with discussing this matter with the hon. member for Beauce; we are concerned with government policy. The Acting Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Howe) has said that the government is liberalizing its immigration policy. I suggest to the government that it stop liberalizing its policy if this is to be the result. This is not liberalizing any policy.
Let us look at the picture. On April 22, on the orders of the day, I asked the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) a question about a report appearing in the papers of that date, that a member of parliament had gone to Europe to select people for his factory from the displaced persons camps. The minister replied, as reported on page 2279 of Hansard, as follows:
I have not seen the newspaper item to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I would repeat what I said the other day to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). So far as any new policy on immigration is concerned, it will be announced in due course.
That was on April 22. But in a return issued at the request of the hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), being sessional paper 678, among other items I find this:
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 1st April, 1947.
On April 1, three weeks before I had asked my question, the government by this order in council had set aside its former policy on immigration as authorized by P. C. 695 since 1931 and had adopted a new policy to permit the hon. member for Beauce to bring in 100 persons from displaced persons camps in Europe to work in his factory.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) painted a very good picture of the desperate condition of those in the displaced persons camps. We are all agreed that their position is desperate, but let me tell the house that their desperation was not the reason why they were brought to Canada. I should like to quote from a letter written by the hon. member for Beauce to the deputy minister of labour under date of November 26, 1946, in which he said:
I know that this permission can be given to me if you care to talk the matter with the minister, and I would like you to do so. I know Mr. Mitchell and I am positive he will do everything he can to help me.
Not to help persons in the displaced persons camps, but to help the hon. member for Beauce.
I hope that you will reconsider this situation in the light of emergency on which I am placed and will act accordingly.
That was not an emergency facing the persons in the displaced persons camps; the emergency was the position in which the hon. member for Beauce was placed through not being able to get people for his mills. It has been suggested that these people would be glad to get away from the displaced persons camps. There is no doubt in the world of that, but it is equally evident that the girls who worked in the Beauce mill were also anxious to get away, because 555 out of a total staff of 425 got away from there in one year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Seasonal work.


Angus MacInnis: It is time that we stopped talking about this thing having been done on the basis of humanity. It was not done on the basis of humanity; it was done on the basis of pure, cold, business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The C.C.F. should talk about bringing in immigrants.


Angus MacInnis: We are quite pleased to have immigrants brought in, but we will not,
Labour Conditions

without protest, allow them to be brought in by industrialists going over to the displaced persons camps in Europe where these people have been congregated, where they are anxious to get away from their misery and distress, and feeling their arms and muscles, examining them to see if they are fit to work. I should like to quote from another letter by the hon. member for Beauce. This letter is addressed to the Minister of Mines and Resources under date of March 26, 1947, and he says:
As I am going across myself, I will visit these girls personally so that I can make sure that they are fit for the work that they will have to perform in my mill.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: Of course that is right. I am saying that is the reason they were brought here and I say that is wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You want to leave them there.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend was
brought up in the cradle of Liberalism, but it seems to me that he must have fallen out of it early in life when he is willing to approve conduct like that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do you want them to remain where they are?


Angus MacInnis: I do not want to leave them where they are, but I do not want anyone to exploit their misery.


Lionel Chevrier: What are you exploiting now?


Angus MacInnis: Nothing, and my hon. friend knows it.


Lionel Chevrier: I know no such thing. It is the contrary, I should think.


Angus MacInnis: These people are refugees. A refugee is a person who is seeking sanctuary. When you provide refuge for a person seeking sanctuary you do not consider how much gain you can get out of it. You consider what help you can give to that refugee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The main thing is to give him sanctuary. You would keep him in slavery.


Angus MacInnis: These girls have actually gone into slavery now.


Lionel Chevrier: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Angus MacInnis: The turn-over in this plant of 425 employees in a year is great. There were 555 taken in and left in a year.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know the hon. member wants to be fair-


Angus MacInnis: Of course I want to be fair, but you people don't.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't accuse me of that. Will my hon. friend not admit this that in the small town industries there is a great deal of seasonal employment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is seasonal
employment?


Humphrey Mitchell: I know what I am talking about. My hon. friend does not. There is a greater turn-over by the very nature of things in the small town industries of Ontario and Quebec than in other provinces where they have not the same amount of seasonal labour.


Angus MacInnis: I have read the whole of the file, and nowhere has the hon. member for Beauce said that this was a seasonal industry. If it is a seasonal industry, how is he to guarantee employment to these girls for two years if he could not guarantee employment for two years to the citizens of Quebec?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Regardless of how he can, he is guaranteeing it, and the immigration branch will hold him to his contract.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether he is or is not, and I do not think the minister knows, because he said a few minutes ago that he did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. I said I had not seen the contract.


Angus MacInnis: My understanding is that the contract was not made with the government of Canada or with anybody in Canada, but with the officials of UNRRA. I have here the Montreal Standard of May 31, containing an interview with Mr. James Adams, general manager of the plant. This is what Mr. Adams says:
This business of the two-year contract, that wasn't Mr. Dionne's idea at all. The allied commission insisted upon it. He is responsible for the welfare of the girls for the next two years.
So this government does not know anything about it, and it is not on the record that the government ever demanded a contract. It goes on:
After that, if they want to go somewhere else, they can. But their contract is for two years.
Outside of that, no minister on the other side of the house can say with any assurance that there is anything in writing that will protect the interests of these girls.


Mr. BELZILE:: There is the law of the land.	.

Labour Conditions


Angus MacInnis: There is very little law of the land in the province of Quebec so far as the workers are concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Angus MacInnis: That is the fact. What we object to is not the bringing in of these people. We have asked that the government of Canada bring these people into Canada as free people, giving them a chance to make their own way and go their own way whenever they want to. We will not allow people with commercial interests to serve to go into these camps, pick out whom they want and leave those they do not want, and then say they are performing a public service. It is nothing of the kind. It is pure, straight commercialism, and it is something this government should be definitely ashamed of.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: As one who has been interested in the question of immigration and the plight of displaced persons and refugees, and who has had something to say about it from time to time, I wish to say a few words on this occasion; my main purpose being to point out what, in my opinion, is the shortcoming of the present policy of the government, and second, to clear up some of the charges and misunderstandings that have been created in the house this afternoon. Before doing that, I wish to remind the house that we are discussing the motion moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), leader of this group, and to read a line or two from the motion to set out its purpose. These words will, I think, set out what we are trying to impress upon the government and the house:
The selection of displaced persons and refugees and their admission to this country should be directed entirely by the federal government with a view to resettling these people as free human beings in such a way as to serve their best interests and those of the Canadian people as well.
That is the object of bringing before the house this motion which started this discussion. I wanted to place that on record, because some of the charges and some of the statements that have been made this afternoon have beclouded the issue. It was not our purpose to make any political capital out of the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, never!


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: And we have not
attempted to do so.



S3166-236

William Irvine: If there is something to be made, why not make it?


Mr. RINFRET:: That is frank.


William Irvine: It means something, too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: But if other members ' insist on having it on a political basis, then, of course we have nothing to hide and are quite willing to put our position before the house. However I have never personally felt that this is a question which should be placed on a political basis, certainly not on a partisan basis, because it is a question which affects all parties in the house and all the people of the country. I do not think anything can be gained by making charges which cannot be supported or by making statements which are contrary to the facts. My criticism of the government is with regard to the policy which is now being followed; and I gather from the speech of the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Howe) today that that is the present government policy; in other words, that it is not an isolated incident, but is a step along the line of government policy. If that is so, I wish to say, in all earnestness and without any acrimony whatsoever, that it is not the best way to go about the matter.
For example, as the government and the acting minister know full well, there have been thousands of applications waiting, some for two years and some for longer, by people in Canada who have relatives in displaced camps in Europe, people here in Canada who, on their own initiative, are willing to take the responsibility of bringing these people to this country, paying their passage if necessary, and guaranteeing employment and a home for them here. The relatives in Canada of displaced persons in camps in Europe are anxious to bring these people here, not because they want to exploit them. Let it be clear that they want to bring them here because they feel, having had the privilege of entering this country themselves and being now in a position to help their compatriots who are not in as good a situation, that they are willing to sacrifice something of what little wealth they have in order to help their brethren. It is in that spirit that the applications were made and submitted to the government. I have had some personal experience, as other hon. members have had, and know something about what is going on behind these applications. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that ninety-five per cent or more of these applications were made from a purely humanitarian point of view, trying to help somebody out. Under these circumstances it would appear that the government should be prepared to cooperate

Labour Conditions

in the same spirit by putting the whole question on a humanitarian basis; that is, by allowing refugees and displaced persons to come to this country to find sanctuary, not because of what they can add to the immediate wealth of the country, but because they are in great need. In some cases, if their health is impaired, they might even be a liability to the country for a little time, but that should not deter us from assisting them.
As I said, these applications have been lying by the thousands in the hands of the immigration branch and very little has been done about the matter. The results have been disappointing. I think everybody will admit that. At the moment I am not criticizing anyone in particular when I say that. The government have had reason, perhaps, why they were not able to expedite the disposal of these applications as they should have done. But while that is going on, while thousands of people in this country who have relatives in Europe and who have submitted applications and made every guarantee that was asked of them to the government and were waiting for action, they find that other persons who are not doing it on the same basis-let us be frank about that; it is not done on a basis of bringing in relatives for humanitarian purposes; it is done to bring in labour for certain industries-are getting priority so far as transportation and permission are concerned. Special orders in council have been passed to give these people priority over those who are attempting to bring in their relatives. That is the basis of my criticism.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member
a question? What is the priority that has been given?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite clear from
the order in council which was quoted today, which set aside the provisions of the general order, 695, and gave this particular person the privilege of bringing in a certain group of immigrants while others under the general immigration order have to wait.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The T.C.A. service is open
to all. Anybody can buy seats on the T.C.A.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not want to get
into an argument with the acting minister about this. It so happens that not many relatives of displaced persons in Canada are in a position to hire T.C.A. planes to bring their relatives here. I think that is one good reason why they have not done so.


Angus MacInnis: And they would not think of charging it back.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I now for the
first time have the contract in my hand, [DOT]and I refer to clause (d), which reads:
No deduction from the wages will be made by the company for the cost of transportation of the worker from Germany to destination in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not what they
said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But that is what the contract says.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I hope
before I am through saying what I have to say, we shall be able to get on the record other facts with regard to the contract.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has read from a document, and I am asking that the document be tabled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly. I was waiting for
the opportunity to table a copy of the document.


Joseph William Burton: Why was it not tabled
earlier?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received it just this minute. It comes from overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member has a suspicious mind; that is all.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: We asked for it.


Mr. MLTTCH:: Hon. members over there
have a good sense of publicity.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I said a moment ago,
Mr. Speaker, that those who would like permission to bring relatives to Canada should have been given consideration. The report made last year by the senate committee on immigration and labour bears out that contention. I wish to quote from page 311 of the report submitted by that committee, at which there will be found these words:
Immigrants who come to Canada on the responsibility of relatives or friends already here enjoy a real advantage over those who arrive as complete strangers. The right to bring relatives and friends here is a privilege which our government may well extend to Canadian citizens. This principle has already been recognized by the government in an order in council dated May 28, 1946, P.C. 2071.
But unfortunately, although that principle was admitted by the passage of that order in council, we find that it is only too easy to pass another order in council setting aside the provisions of the former one in order to make special conditions or to apply special privileges to some persons. I wanted to say that, because I believe that the present action of the government, whether it is deliberately

Labour Conditions
taken or not. is short-circuiting our immigration policy. It is not carrying out the intent of parliament.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend talks about short-circuiting, would he say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not a speech; just a question.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait a minute. You asked me enough questions this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we did not get any answers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not to my disadvantage. But when my hon. friend talks about short-circuiting, -would he say that bringing to Canada people who are in these camps is short-circuiting the regulations? I know what my hon. friend is trying to do. He is trying to play both ends against the middle.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to assure the minister that I am not playing the two ends against the middle. What I am trying to do is to point out that by making these special provisions for privileged persons-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Privileged?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -the government is providing a safety valve for not having to do anything about the general question of displaced persons.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is privileged.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I hope that is clear enough. There are, as I said, thousands of those, within the knowledge of the immigration branch. It is not a matter of bringing in one, two or three hundred; it runs into thousands. And the people of this country are, I think, entitled to expect action on the part of the government on that point, because all parties in this house have agreed. Surely that is all that is necessary in parliament. If all parties are agreed on a principle, the government should take action. All parties are agreed that the question of displaced persons and refugees should get some priority. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, in making a statement in the house not so long ago, made the statement that displaced persons and refugees would get priority, and the senate committee recognized that, as I just quoted a minute or two ago. I do not know whether the minister was in his seat at the time.


James Horace King: Order. May I call the attention of hon. members to a matter of procedure and ask them to confine their remarks to the motion before the house. This afternoon the leader of the C.C.F. party asked 83166-236J
for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31. Standing order 31 says:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) -
The motion of the hon. gentleman says:

for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the government in authorizing certain Canadian industrialists to select individuals from displaced persons camps in Europe and bring such individuals to work in Canada under contract

I would ask hon. members who take part in this debate to confine their remarks to the motion before the house, which is the matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the government in authorizing certain Canadian industrialists to select individuals from displaced persons camps in Europe and to bring such individuals to work in Canada under contract.


Major James William Coldwell: Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the other words should also be taken in conjunction with what you have just read, namely:
-it being the traditional policy of parliament that the importation of indentured labour should be completely prohibited, which means that the selection of displaced persons and refugees and their admission to this country should be directed entirely by the federal government with a view to resettling these people as free human beings in such a way as to serve their best interests and those of the Canadian people as well.
Should these words not be included?


James Horace King: If the hon. member looks at standing order 31, subsection 6 (b), he will find these words:
Not more than one matter can be discussed on the same motion.
This afternoon I accepted the hon. member's motion because I thought it was urgent and of public importance. I took that attitude because he said, ". . . namely the action of the government in authorizing. . ." this and that. So I would ask hon. members who take part in this debate to confine their remarks to that main subject.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I am going to do. We are discussing the action of the government in their application of their immigration policy. It is difficult to discuss the action of the government without bringing in the lack of action, as we see it. We, according to the terms of the motion, disagree with the way in which the immigration policy is being implemented, and are trying to set out the reasons
Labour Conditions

why. We believe that those people in Canada, practically all of tnem citizens of Canada, who made application and gave guarantees to the government to look after relatives who might be brought to this country, should have been given at least the same privilege of bringing them in as was given to other persons who are interested in obtaining labour for their industries.
I wish to refer now to another phase of this matter, and I do so with a certain amount of sadness because it is most unfortunate that a member of this house should have made the kind of speech that was made this afternoon. I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), with whom I have so often agreed on matters of this kind, but with whom I must disagree thoroughly this evening.
I said at the outset that this is a nonpartisan issue, and to bear that out I wish to remind the hon. member who spoke today in such vigorous terms, as well as other members of the house, that in 1945 certain members of this house, representing all four parties in it, signed a document which was presented to the Prime Minister and which read in part as follows:
We the undersigned members of parliament appeal to you in name of humanity to use full moral force of Canada's position with all other allies to effectively and immediately relieve plight of displaced persons in British and American zones, especially kin of Canadian citizens.
As I say, that was signed by members of at least the four major parties in this house. The Liberal party across the way was represented; my Progressive Conservative friends signed; members of both this group and the Social Credit party signed it, which establishes quite clearly that at least this question started out on a non-political basis, and I would hope that it might be kept on that plane throughout. Some of the charges and statements made by the hon. member against the leader of this group were most unfortunate, particularly because, to say the least, they were inaccurate. He evidently disagreed with the terms of this motion, and I want to make it quite clear that I have no criticism in that regard, because it is his privilege to disagree just as much as it is our privilege to agree. But when he went out of his way to make personal insinuations and charges as to the intentions of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I think the hon. member overreached himself; and I believe that when he reads his speech in a quieter moment and more meditative mood he will have reason to regret
ever having made such a speech in this house. Today the discussion started off on a nonpolitical, non-partisan plane.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I hope hon. gentlemen across the way are not going to take that attitude; otherwise it may make things a little difficult. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who followed the leader of this group, stated his position and agreed with th6 motion. The next speaker was the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who leads the Social Credit party. He stated his position, and also agreed with the motion. As I say, it is the privilege of any member of any group to disagree with any motion; but when the hon. member of Vegreville rises in the house and accuses the leader of this group of having ulterior motives in moving this motion, and at the same time makes statements to the effect that my leader had never spoken in this house or elsewhere on behalf of the displaced persons and refugees of Europe, he is, of course, quite a long way from the truth, and I believe he will regret those statements. One part of his speech in particular was, I think, very unfortunate, when he attempted to link up something said by Mr. Mosher with the motion before the house today.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Are you ashamed of that connection?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not a bit ashamed of any connection that may exist, but it so happens there was no connection at all. I have only a passing acquaintance with Mr. Mosher, but in testifying before the senate committee on immigration and labour he put forward the position of the organization he represents in terms very favourable to displaced persons and refugees. For that I think the hon. member for Vegreville, who, I know, is deeply interested in the matter, should be thankful instead of attacking the very people who are trying to help him. This is what Mr. Mosher had to say last year in presenting his brief to the senate committee, at page 208 of the proceedings of that committee:
The admission of refugees, though it has, of course, economic aspects, is primarily a humanitarian question. Canada is under an obligation to humanity to admit her due share of refugees even if it costs her something. It may actually bring her important economic benefits, but even if it does not. she must do her part.
I believe that statement sets out clearly that Mr. Mosher and the organization he represents are not opposed to bringing displaced persons and refugees to this country on a humanitarian basis, the basis of helping out those people, even though it may cost Canada
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

Labour Conditions
something to do so. Having set that out before the committee, having made that plea for the very persons for whom the hon. member for Vegreville made his plea, I think the hon. gentleman should have spoken of Mr. Mosher in kinder terms than he used today. I should also like to remind the hon. member that members of this group whom he saw fit to attack on this question have pleaded this cause in this house on various occasions. As early as 1945 the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mrs. Strum), pleaded in this house that at least fifty thousand children of the displaced persons be brought to Canada for adoption by Canadian people. I could go on and quote from one year to the next, to show that members of our group contributed to the debates of this house asking for consideration on behalf of these people. In saying that, I am not asking that this party be given any credit for having done so, because we were not seeking to capitalize on it politically. We were doing what we thought was right, just as members of other parties were doing their bit to help out in a difficult situation. But having done that, I thought we deserved kinder words than we heard from the hon. member today. I want to quote also what the leader of this group said in this same connection during the course of a radio broadcast in November, 1946:
As long as this problem of displaced persons is allowed to continue unsolved, so long will there be misunderstanding, distrust and difficulty. No nation can afford to wash its hands of the problem and those lands where populations are sparse have a special responsibility in this matter.
Because of this the Canadian delegation has given much attention and support to the proposal to establish a special international refugee organization to deal with this distressing problem. But if I may say so attention and support are insufficient when action is expected of us.
There again the hon. member set out in clear terms his sympathy for and his plea on behalf of refugees and displaced persons; and for that I believe he deserved kinder treatment than he was given today. I might also remind the hon. member for Vegreville that as early in 1937 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was a member of the national refugee committee of this country. That was three years before the hon. member for Vegreville entered this house. My leader has done very good work on that committee; he has taken a keen interest in refugees and, I believe, is regarded by all hon. members as a man of broad and sympathetic views on that question. 1 am not saying these things because I think the record of my leader requires any defence from me; but after having listened to a speech this afternoon which, I am very sorry to say,
did no credit to the hon. member who made it. I considered it my duty to make my position clear in this regardi


Anthony Hlynka: The hon. member read a telegram which was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) while he was overseas in London. Did the leader of the C.C.F. group sign that telegram? If not, why not?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: There again, Mr. Speaker,
I am afraid my hon. friend takes a very narrow view. He asks whether my leader signed this telegram.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before they start ohing and ahing, I might remind my hon. friends that this telegram was drawn up hurriedly, and all hon. members did not have an opportunity to sign it; in fact I do not believe all hon. members saw it. It so happens that it was I who circulated a copy of the telegram in my own group. Everyone I approached signed it, but it was not possible to see everyone ;n the group. I might also remind my hon. friend that not all the members of his own group signed it. As a matter of fact, I believe it was signed by only one member of the party to my right. That was not their fault; perhaps they were not given an opportunity of seeing it and giving it consideration. The point is that the general idea was supported by members of every group in the * house. It was put on a non-political basis, and I am amazed that my hon. friend, who so often has made eloquent speeches on this subject in this house, should have taken such a different line entirely today and put the whole thing on a political basis.
I want to say, before I conclude, that what we in this group are anxious to see is that the people who come to this country as immigrants, whether they come as immigrants or displaced persons, will be able, five or ten years from now, to say that they were treated as well as the other people in the country. I am not criticizing the government for having allowed refugees to come to this country, and neither is my leader. In fact, we congratulate them upon having made any provision at all under which these people can come in. But I believe it is our duty, as members of the house, to see to it that immigrants who come to Canada come under conditions which will make it possible for them to become good and satisfied citizens in the future.
There is a great deal of talk about the dangers of discontent and communism. We hear it in the house and outside the house. But let us be careful that we do not create
3C98
Labour Conditions

conditions in industry, and have our people working under such conditions that communism will become attractive to them. Let us treat them in a decent, Canadian way, and we shall make good Canadian citizens of them. That is our belief.
We are prepared to make the same plea for anyone entering Canada. I do not want what I am saying this evening to sound as if I am condemning the government for any isolated instance. It so happens that one of the Canadian government's policies is what we are discussing today. I do not want it to appear that I am referring to any particular person in derogatory terms. What the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) has done was perfectly in order, so far as we are concerned, because the government gave him permission to do it. Therefore I do not attack him in any way.
But I do say that we in parliament have a responsibility to bring persons in under proper conditions, both for the good of themselves and for the good of Canada. It is the duty of members of the House of Commons to protect the interests of the Canadian people, and of any future Canadians in this country.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to add a few remarks in the discussion which has taken place with respect to-[DOT]
. . . the action of the government in authorizing certain Canadian industrialists to select individuals from displaced persons camps in Europe and bring such individuals to work in Canada under contract, it being the traditional policy of parliament that the importation of indentured labour should be completely prohibited, which means that the selection of displaced persons and refugees and their admission to this country should be directed entirely by the federal government with a view to re-settling these people as free human beings in such a way as to serve their best interests and those of the Canadian people as well.
I believe that is the wording of the motion now before us, and it deals with a situation which has caused debate across the country. I realize that many people are not actually conversant with the pros and cons of it. But to many people it does seem strange that the government of the day should pass an order in council setting aside certain provisions of order 695 so as to assist an industrialist, who happens to be a member of parliament, to bring in these hundred Polish girls to assist in his mill at Beauce, Quebec.
Something is added to the confusion when we find that many applications are coming asking that people from the British isles be allowed to come to Canada at this time.
These are people who are relatives of Canadian servicemen who gave splendid service in the past few years.
I am not directly blaming the government for the situation at this time, but it is a difficult situation. I have received many applications from my	own constituency
respecting people from the British isles who want to come here, but who cannot possibly obtain passage at least during the coming year.
Something is added to the present confusion when these people, with relatives in this country, cannot make arrangements to come out to Canada and establish future residence in this country. It was said this afternoon that the government has been derelict in its duty, and that it has tended to encourage slave labour in Canada by permitting such a contract. That charge was, I believe, made this afternoon.
On the other hand, I have here a newspaper article which states:
The entire exodus was arranged by mill owner Ludger Dionne, who is Liberal member of parliament for Beauce.
Taking note of the fact that union officials have condemned the emigration, Mr. Dionne said that his plant had tried without success to obtain girls "all over Canada." He said that his mills capable of giving work to 700 hands, were running at about a third or half that number "most of the time."
"We tried to get employees in Quebec City, St. Malo. Thetford Mines and Sherbrooke, among other places, and we just couldn't get enough," he said. "Let the unions find us some labour, then they'll be in a better position to talk."
Mr. Dionne said that he didn't care "what unions try to organize my plant, they are all free to try." He added that the mills already had an agreement with the National Catholic Syndicate, remarking: "I think the Catholic Syndicate is the proper union out there, you know we are a Roman Catholic community."
Mr. Dionne said that two Polish priests from Chicago, together with priests at the displaced persons camp where the girls were located, had undertaken to select the girls for jobs in the St. Georges de Beauce mills. He said that they had compiled a preliminary list of 150 names.
Mr. Dionne said that 50 of the girls had been rejected by the British medical authorities.
I am sure there are not any of us who can state right now whether this movement will be entirely satisfactory, or beneficial to the girls. We all hope it will be. It is only after they have been here for some time that the success or failure of the venture will be proved to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is a trial which, we sincerely trust, will work out for the benefit of the girls themselves, and all concerned in this country.
But this does bring clearly to people's attention the fact that we have a real industrial

Labour Conditions
problem with respect to help in various parts of Canada. Something must be done; and I am sure we are all opposed to what has been termed "slave labour." We want to see proper remuneration given to everyone who works in this country. I trust that will be taken care of.
There are many people throughout Canada who are today wondering why so many articles are in short supply. I know that last fall, and again this spring many producers on the western prairies could not understand why they could not get more of the implements of production. I maintain that one of the chief reasons was the length of the difficult steel strike we had last year. Steel enters into these various products, and I believe that strike had more than anything else to do with the shortage of supplies so essential on the farms today. There are many other articles in short supply, and the consumers of this nation are wondering why this situation should exist.
In today's issue of the Ottawa Journal, that of June 2, 1947, we find at page 14 a photograph headed "C.C.F. M.P's. in Picket Line at Ottawa Car Plant", and the explanation of the picture reads:
Alistair Stewart, C.C.F. M.P. for Winnipeg North, third from left, joined the picket line at Ottawa Car and Aircraft plant this morning because of the "sympathy we have for the strikers." Mr. Stewart said he was accompanied by Thomas Bentley, C.C.F. M.P. for Swift Current, Saskatchewan, four girls from C.C.F. national headquarters and Jean Holman, stenographic pool secretary to M. J. Coldwell C.C.F. party leader. Mr. Stewart said his party was "not interfering in any way with the strike but felt the men had a .just cause." He said there would be other C.C.F. M.P.'s in the picket line during the week.
I will admit we are living in a free land, a very free land; but I do not think that is a good example for members of parliament to set. I believe they should place themselves on a different plane, a more judicial plane, md should not be taking sides one way or another. My sympathies are just as much with the under-privileged people of Ottawa or of Canada as are those of any member of the C.C.F. party in Canada.


William Irvine: On a point of order, I should like to have Your Honour relate what the hon. gentleman is now saying to the subject before the house.


James Arthur Ross: As I read the motion, we are discussing the bringing into this country of industrial labour, and there is a distinct action to prohibit workers from going to work who might increase the production of this country. The people mentioned in this
article are a party to that action. That is the only relationship there is, but to the consumers and citizens of Canada it is an important relationship. So much for that matter.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house in following up this argument. I want to repeat the hope, so well expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), that we get around as quickly as possible to the point where the government will be responsible for all immigration. We should have a policy; we should not be passing orders in council to assist this or that particular group, no matter how well they may deserve it. This should be a matter of government responsibility and government policy, and I trust we shall arrive at that point in the near future.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, considerable time has been taken in discussing this matter, which is regarded, I think properly, as one of urgent public importance. It is a matter with respect to which I have been much interested, especially since attending the last meeting of the general assembly of the united nations. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was also interested in the problem which was brought so vividly to our attention during the course of that meeting. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) said that he had no fault to find with what the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) had done in this matter, because the government had given him permission to do it. That is the whole question. Is the government blameworthy for having given permission to do a thing which has resulted in 100 persons from the displaced persons camps being here in Canada at this time? It seems to me that that is the whole question.
Over a period of years we had regulations and the administration of regulations designed to keep people out of Canada. For a great many years that had become both the written policy and the practical application of the policy by the officers of the department. One of the first things done after our return from the meeting of the assembly of the united nations was to provide an amendment to P.C. 695 to authorize persons resident in Canada to bring in persons related to them who happened to be in displaced persons camps. That amendment was adopted on January 30, 1947.
That did not have any immediate result. Although the obstacle which theretofore had existed as a legal obstacle was removed, there were still many physical obstacles that had to be overcome. It was necessary for these
Labour Conditions

people to get to someone representing the immigration branch and satisfy him that they were in good health. Travelling teams were organized to visit the displaced persons camps. An arrangement had been made with the government of the United Kingdom to admit into Canada 3,000 Polish soldiers who had fought with the allied armies and who were not disposed to return to Poland under the regime that now exists there. They had to be examined; teams were organized for that purpose and, if they were found to be in good health, visas were issued which enabled them to enter this country. The same teams were authorized to examine other persons who came within the rather narrow terms that had been adopted in January.
It must not be forgotten that, over all these years, everybody in Canada was against immigrants coming in. We were proceeding cautiously, perhaps too cautiously, but it was the result of the long years of the other attitude. Not many were coming in. Three or four times the provisions with respect to relatives were broadened to include a larger number of persons. It so happened that transportation conditions were extremely difficult. We felt-and I think that feeling was pretty generally shared-that such transportation as there was should go in priority to persons in the displaced persons camps.
That did not affect immigration from the British isles or from any commonwealth country; there had been no obstacle in the regulations with respect to such persons beyond the requirement that they had to be able to take care of themselves. In application that did prove to be an obstacle. The officers were requiring these people to show the possession of a certain amount of money in order to satisfy them that they would not become a charge. That obstacle was removed and instructions were given that there was no other requirement than that of good health. It was felt that, if one could get to a Canadian port, and was able and willing to take a job, he was not apt, under present economic conditions, to become a charge upon Canada.
At that time representations were made that labour for agriculture was very short and that that part of our population engaged in agriculture could, without putting any further strain on the housing situation, which was and still is acute, bring in a certain number of agricultural workers and take them into their homes. A provision was seriously discussed, for perhaps too many days or too many weeks, and finally a decision was reached that if one wished to take agricultural employment and have an assured job in Canada there

could be no objection to his coming in. That was provided for in the regulations. It was provided also at the same time in January that the same rule might be applied to men who wanted to work in the mines, in the forests or in logging operations, that if they could establish they were in a fit physical condition to do that kind of work and were going to an assured job in Canada a waiver of the general excluding provision would be made in their behalf. There was another provision made for bringing in, under the agricultural classification, workers for the sugar beet industry. Representations had, of course, been made that logging companies and mining companies were prepared to undertake to house and employ men who would come in for forestry operations, or for mining operations. Then the hon. member for Beauce comes along and says, "I have work that I can give to persons now in displaced persons camps, and I am prepared to provide them with assured employment and proper housing if you will permit me to bring them in". An order in council was passed, I think on April 1, in that behalf.
The question now before those who have to consider it is: Are we blameworthy for the fact that 100 such girls or thereabouts are now in Canada instead of in displaced persons camps? That reminds me of an incident which came to our attention just recently. A young Jewdsh girl arrived here in the month of April. She had been one of a family of nine, comprising her father, her mother and her six brothers and sisters. They had all been confined in concentration camps and had been moved from one camp to another, and she was the last survivor of those nine. She was the niece of some well-to-do people who had been living in Quebec for some twenty years. They had heard of her plight. I do not know how they managed it, but they did manage to get her a visa to go to the Dominican Republic or Haiti; they did manage to get her transportation on a plane from Amsterdam to New York, and they did manage to get her permission in New York to come up to visit her relatives in Canada for a period of thirty days. There was an application that she be allowed to remain here. We were told that that would not be fair. Why should she be allowed to remain here because her relatives in Canada were able to arrange things that other people could not do? Why should she be allowed to remain because well-to-do relatives in Quebec had been able to do these things? There are people in these camps who have not the advantage of having relatives who can arrange matters of that kind, and we were told that that would be an unfair exception to make.

Labour Conditions
Why should she be allowed to stay here when there are so many hundreds of others who have gone through as much as she has and who cannot get out of these camps? It seems to me that that is nonsense. She was here in Canada, and it was nonsense to take the view that she should not be allowed to remain here because there were others who could not get here.
That is exactly the same situation with respect to the 100 Polish girls. They are here, and it is nonsense, it is inhuman, to say they should not be allowed to be here because there are others who cannot get here. That is exactly the situation.


Angus MacInnis: Nobody said that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Nobody said that? Here we have been told that unfortunately there are persons in these camps who have relatives here who are not in a position to provide air transportation. That is unfortunate. But there are 100 girls here for whom air transportation has been provided. They are here, and should we not be pleased rather than otherwise that there are at least that many who are no longer undergoing the agonies of those displaced persons camps over there? I have read in the papers that negotiations are in process to provide fourteen hundred with air transportation to come to assured work in our Canadian forests. Will it not be a good thing for these fourteen hundred to get here and to have an opportunity to work in our Canadian forests instead of languishing in these displaced persons camps?
It is said that all this should be under the control of the immigration branch. It is under the control of the immigration branch. No one person gets here that is not examined by the officers of the immigration branch and who does not comply with all the other conditions. It so happens that the hon. member for Beauce and others engaged in the lumber industry are going to overcome the remaining difficulties to allow those persons to get here. It is not the form of the regulations that prevents their entry; it is the other material difficulties.
It may be unfortunate, I think it is unfortunate. that there is not transportation available for a larger number. But that is the situation. There are other matters that are being considered and other provisions that will be announced. But I think the attitude has been that wherever anyone can establish that there is a place for him in Canada where he will not put added pressure on our housing situation which is keeping some of our veterans out of accommodation at the present
time, wherever he can establish that there is a place for him that will not add to our present housing difficulties, and that he can get here, he should be allowed to come.
With respect to the working conditions, at the plant of the hon. member for Beauce I do not know what they are. I do know that the last time I was at St. Georges de Beauce it was a little country village. I do know that there were established by the present member of parliament for Beauce and by his predecessor as member of parliament for Beauce embryonic industries in St. Georges, and that they were established for the purpose of providing employment for the people of St. Georges and other parishes of Beauce without their having to go to the big cities to get work. Apparently that is what the people of Beauce like because they elect the people who do that.
I do not know what the conditions are, but I do know that 99 per cent of those who work in those plants established by Mr. Lacroix and the present member for Beauce are from the families of the county of Beauce and I know that those families are interrelated. I know it would be pretty poor politics for a politician to maintain a sweatshop for the people of his constituency, especially if the people of his constituency were all as closely related as they are in the county of Beauce. That is the broad outline of the situation.
The Acting Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Howe) has just tabled this contract, which appears to be in the form of a letter addressed to the secretary of the intergovernmental committee on refugees, dated April 14, 1947. Because of the widespread interest in this matter, perhaps it wrould be well for me to read the text:
London, 14 April, 1947.
The Secretary,
The Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, 19 Hill Street,
London, W.l.
On behalf of and in the name of the Com-pagnie Dionne Spinning Mills Co. of St. Georges de Beauce, province of Quebec, Canada (hereafter called the company), I am undertaking the following obligations:
(a)	The company will employ single women who are the concern of your committee and who I select in Germany with your assistance and help, for at least 2 years, and observe all labour conditions which are in force in the province of Quebec with regard to workers of such qualifications or usually granted to them.
(b)	The company will pay to all persons recruited in Germany with your assistance and help, not less than the current wages paid, in the province of Quebec, to spinning mill workers with the same qualifications as these persons have on condition that the worker stays in our employment for 2 years unless the contract is terminated by agreement between the company
Labour Conditions

and the worker or for any other reason (except rightful dismissal by the company) lawful in spite of the fact that the contract has been made for two years; otherwise the company will pay to the worker only the minimum wage which is due to the worker of such qualifications under the laws of the province of Quebec.
(c)	The company will pay to the worker weekly only the minimum wage which is due to such a worker under the laws of the province of Quebec. The company will retain the difference between these minimum wages and the current wages, pay them into a separate account, and pay the sum so retained as a lump sum after the period of two years has expired, or prior to that date if the contract has been terminated by agreement between the company and the worker or for any other reason (except rightful dismissal by the company) lawful in spite of the fact that the contract has been made for two years.
(d)	No deduction from the wages will be made by the company for the cost of transportation of the worker from Germany to destination in Canada.
Compagnie Dionne Spinning Mills Co.
(Signed) Ludger Dionne,
14 April, 1947.


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise on a matter of privilege? I was the one who stated this afternoon that costs were to be deducted. Had this contract been placed before the house, it might have put a different complexion on the matter except that in the letter of March 26 containing the request to which the minister of immigration acceded on March 27, this clause appears;
I will make a contract with these girls to refund me their transportation charges at about 25 per cent of what they will earn weekly in my plant.
I asked for the tabling of this contract; it was not tabled until tonight. The letter upon which the government acted is dated March 27.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to that, I would make no apology whatsoever for the action of this government. If I were in a concentration camp or in a displaced persons camp and someone offered to provide me with air transportation to Canada on condition that out of my earnings in the future I would repay it, I would gladly consent.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The question may
arise, why does the hon. member for Beauce do this? I asked him myself why he did it. I told him that a contract for two years would never be enforceable. He said: "For a certain time these persons will wish to remain with me and will remain with me. During the summer season most of the girls I have from the farms in Beauce go back to their homes." I felt that that was probably true. My wife is from the county of Beauce. For a great many years we had maids from

the county of Beauce, and I know from experience that it was not easy to keep maids from the county of Beauce during the summer season. That appeared to me to be a plausible explanation.
These mills would not very much appeal to me. The hon. member for Beauce explained to me that the working hours were in two shifts, one from six o'clock in the morning until two o'clock in the , afternoon and the other from two o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night. Well, those who start to work at six o'clock in the morning have to go to bed pretty early in the evening. There is not much night life for them. And those who work until ten o'clock at night in St. Georges, unless it has changed very greatly since I was there, would not find anybody else up when they got off from their work. I then said to him, "You know, this idea of saying that you are going to take only Catholic girls is something that is difficult to explain," because there is a lot to be said for the attitude expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon as to his feeling when he was recruiting teachers, I think it was. The explanation that was given to me was that there had been established there a hostel at considerable cost. I have not seen it; I am told that it is well fitted out, quite a comfortable building, well provided and equipped for the residence of these girls, but it is under the direction of some nuns. He said, "None but Catholic girls would be at all happy in these surroundings." I think that is true. I do not know how happy the Catholic girls are. From the pictures that have been published in the papers they were at least happy on arrival. I hope that that joy will continue. But that is the situation, and I was impressed by the fact that these girls were to get the same kind of treatment that a member of parliament provides in his own constituency for the daughters of his own constituents. It seemed to me that that would be nothing very deplorable and that, in any event, it would be fortunate for these persons to get from these displaced persons camps to the kind of hostel under the conduct of a religious community of Catholic nuns, which is operated in the town of St. Georges.
There is this other group that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to as being something with respect to which he was quite in accord, a group that would be brought out because not only the employer but the representatives of trade unions would assist in the selection or in the making of arrangements That may be all right. I do

Labour Conditions
not see that the presence of representatives of labour unions will make the situation very much better.
The whole problem is this. Is it a bad thing that there should be an additional number of people willing to work coming into this country? That is the question. If they are willing to work in the kind of jobs for which enough workers are not available I think they will be improving their own position, and I am not at all scandalized if they also at the same time improve the economic situation of the country. I think that if all the displaced persons in these camps could get into places where they would be contributing to the economy of the lands to which they will go they will be far happier if they are brought into lands where they are not a charge upon the rest of the community.


John George Diefenbaker: I know it is often said that one did not intend to participate in the debate-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member cannot say that.


John George Diefenbaker: I can. I have listened all afternoon to the arguments advanced, the argument of the affable Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) when on behalf of the government he raised the defence that the house should wait until the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) was in the house to explain the situation to the country. That argument was not effective because, Mr. Speaker, so far as the hon. member for Beauce is concerned he enters into this question only to the extent that he happens to be the employer. The responsibility-and the minister who has just taken his seat has admitted it-does not rest on the hon. member for Beauce. The responsibility for what took place, if there be such, rests upon the government and not upon the hon member. To that extent, at least, some of the underbrush during the course of the debate has been cleared away.
Matters have been brought in which have aroused animosities and antipathies and which have no place in this debate. The question, sir, is that the house be adjourned to discuss the question as to whether the traditional policy of parliament that the importation of indentured labour should be completely prohibited, shall be departed from. Do we in Canada want to establish an immigration policy by which employers in our country will be able to go over to Europe, there select displaced persons and make arrangements with them to pay their transportation out of the wages they will ultimately earn-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: -and then bring them over to Canada? That is the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends say it is not, and to prove that statement I shall read from the records. The government agreed to just that. The government entered into an arrangement with the hon. member for Beauce in consequence of a lengthy correspondence. I am not going to read very much of the record, but I am going to read from the correspondence that is before the house one or two bits which indicate what the plan was. There is first the letter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), in which the policy and the reasons for it are outlined. The reason for asking for a departure from the ordinary immigration laws in effect in this country- and I quote from the letter-was as follows:
The trouble seems that the people have too much money to spend. They work for three or four months and then they go away and live on unemployment funds for a while and go to some other place when they are through with unemployment help.
The purpose behind the application was to assure that when these people came to Canada they would not be free to leave at the end of three or four months but would continue as employees for the period for which they were indentured, namely, a period of two years.
My right hon. friend has dealt with the humanitarian side. No party has any monopoly on that. All of us believe that displaced persons, those who suffered as none of us may ever dare to understand, however one tries, should receive assistance. These unfortunate persons want to get out of camps and go to various parts of the world. Other parts of the world are welcoming them. Canada has been notoriously deficient in performance of what we should have endeavoured to achieve in this regard. We know what our Polish allies did during the period of the war. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) spoke with understandable feeling. We know what our Ukrainian allies did. In the province of Saskatchewan family after family have relatives of those two racial origins whose contribution has been great in this country as has been that of those left behind in the old land. They are fine citizens. The question is: shall we in this parliament approve a makeshift system designed apparently to meet the needs of one employer in this country? Other employers are in a different position. The Minister of Labour said today that this order
Labour Conditions

in council of April 1 is the only one of its kind. There may have been one or two subsequently-


Humphrey Mitchell: Not of that nature.


John George Diefenbaker: Not of that nature, we are told. So what we are asked to approve is an order in council passed on April 1 and what has taken place thereunder. How was that order in council passed? What policy did the government follow? Is it a policy of welcoming to our country, by selective immigration, men and women who would make good citizens? No. It may be only the thin end of the wedge, but it is a policy that will either be continued or discontinued, and we have not any assurance with regard to that point. Upon what is the policy based? Here are the terms of the agreement as contained in a letter of March 26, 1947, from the hon. member for Beauce addressed to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen): That letter reads as follows:
Pursuant our conversation of this afternoon, I respectfully ask you to give me a permit to import 100 foreign girls or widows to work in my spinning plant "Dionne Spinning Mills Co." at St. George, Beauce.
These girls will take their headquarters at the convent-
Then it sets out the exceptionally fine circumstances under which they will live.


Humphrey Mitchell: Read all the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well.
-which is situated five hundred feet from the mill and is under the direction of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
And with that there will be no argument. To continue:
I will pay the transportation of these girls from their homes to Canada. I will see that these girls or widows are healthy morally and physically. I will comply with the rules and regulations of the Canadian government.
The next paragraph is the significant one. It reads:
I will make a contract with these girls to refund me their transportation charges at about 25 per cent of what they will earn weekly in my plant. I will' pay these girls, when they begin x>
work, according to the ordinance No. 5 regu-ating the salaries and conditions of work of tex-;ile industries in the province of Quebec.
May I point out at this point, "I will make a contract" and "25 per cent of what they will earn w'eekly" will be deducted. The girls say they made that contract. In the last few days they have given to the press interviews in which they said that they made the contract that the hon. member for Beauce had in mind when he notified the government of his plan on March 26, 1947. The letter continues:

As I am going across myself, I will visit these girls personally so that I can make sure that they are fit for the work that they will have to perform in my mill.
I expect to bring these girls and widows by aeroplane because I understand that the shipping boat facilities are not available presently.
If there is any other regulation that you would like me to comply with I will be glad to do so.
Hoping you will give this matter preferred attention, believe me,
Yours truly,
That is the offer following correspondence over a period of approximately five months. The acceptance is in a letter from Mr. Jolliffe, dated March 27, 1947, which reads as follows:
I would refer to your letters addressed to the minister relative to the admission of young women from Europe for employment by your company. The minister has had two interview's with Mr. Dionne, M.P., and has agreed to the admission of 100 young women. Particulars of the requirements have been given to Mr. Dionne, who will no doubt be communicating with you in due course.
The letter is directed to James A. Adams, Dionne Spinning Mills Company, St. Georges, Beauce, province of Quebec. The order in council, which from its date I take it was based upon the letter, is dated April 1, 1947, and reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated March 27, 1947, from the Minister of Mines and Resources, representing that the Dionne Spinning Mill Company of St. George, Beauce, Quebec, have applied tor the admission . . .
And so on. That order in council has already been read into the record. It concludes with these words:
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines and Resources advise that as there is a shortage of textile workers in Canada, the provisions of order in council P.C. 695 dated the 21st March, 1931, as amended, be waived in behalf of 106 immigrants as herein described.
What does this all add up to? It means that the government consented to and approved a policy under which these girls would be brought to this country and twenty-five per cent of the amount they might earn each week would be deducted from their pay envelopes. It never lies within the right of anyone, when later he is asked to face what he has done, to say, that while he agreed to one course, later on he agreed with someone else not to do so. I point out, sir, that the order in council was passed on April 1. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked about this matter on April 23 and got no information. Nothing was said about the order in council; not a word. It was just another of those orders in council that get passed and are sometimes forgotten

by the members of the government. They must have forgotten, because on April 23 they did not know anything about it. Parliament was in session, but the order in council in regard to a matter of immigration was forgotten and no information was furnished with regard to it; nor in all the discussions concerning immigration was it. referred to, until after the matter had been brought to the notice of the country through the press. Why? The members of the government who have spoken have not explained the strange situation, in that the government forgot to tell parliament about the order in council and forgot to table the order in council until all arrangements had been completed and concluded. This afternoon production of the contract was asked for by various hon. members. The so-called contract is dated April 14, 1947. It was not in the record. It was not available It came to light only tonight. Whence it came, nobody knows. All we know is that today, just before the dinner recess, the ministers denied that they had it, and tonight it appears. And how the government grab hold of that so-called contract! The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said transportation charges were not going to be deducted, according to the contract. But that is not what the contract says.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like anyone in this country to try to enforce a contract between A and B, with A saying, "I had this contract with B but C, who had nothing to do with it, made a different arrangement with me." That is the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me read a portion of the letter of April 14 to the secretary of the intergovernmental committee on refugees, 19 Hill street, London, which says:
No deduction from the wages will be made by the company for the cost of transportation of the worker from Germany to destination in Canada.
(Signed) Dionne
How is that enforceable in Canada by the girls, who were not party to it and who came to Canada under a different arrangement made between the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) and the government of this country? My hon. friends found at last a straw upon which to lean, but when it is looked into


Clarence Decatur Howe: Complete drivel.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend is more qualified than anyone in this house to speak about quibbles.
!, 1947	3703
Labour Conditions	____


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because I have listened to so much of it.


John George Diefenbaker: He has listened to so much; but we have never been able to change him during a current session. We have often changed him in a subsequent session, when he has had opportunity to think the matter over and realize that we were right. I say, sir, that this was just an out for the government. They did not know it existed until late this afternoon. They did not act upon the so-called contract of April 14. Their contract and the agreement they acted upon was the arrangement they made on March 27, ratified as it was by the order in council. I am not going into further details, but when a contract has been made between certain parties I ask, is it possible to change it subsequently as between one of the original parties and a third party? The only way a government can make an arrangement is by order in council or formal agreement. In this case they made it by order in council; and the explanation given this evening is a mere exculpation found after the event. If the debate this afternoon has succeeded in convincing the government that this question of immigration should be faced in this country as a serious problem-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: And in the open.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER-yes, brought into the open so that we may know what is going on, and not be hidden behind the doors of a council chamber or yet under a secret order in council, it will have been time well spent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend ridicules that, but, after all, parliament has the right to know what is going on, though he has never believed in that doctrine. During the war the government used to hide behind the cloak that it was not in the public interest. Those days are past. It is now in the public interest that each of us should know what is going on in the immigration branch and what is to be done. We had a lengthy debate on immigration but learned nothing about this. The contract, ratified by the order in council, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, denies the principles of the united nations. We talk about fundamental freedoms and human rights. The first human right mentioned among the many forms of human rights in the several submissions were placed before the committee of the united nations was that nowhere in the world, directly or indirectly should there be established contracts of servitude or voluntary slavery.
While these girls have secured their freedom from the awfulness of the camp, they
Labour Conditions

tome to Canada with their freedom two years delayed, a freedom they must buy with the sweat of their brows. I say, sir, that is not immigration; that is no immigration policy; that is no substitute for an immigration policy.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will agree that there is in Canada great sympathy for the suffering and displaced persons of Europe. There is a universal desire to help these people. I was pleased today that the plea of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gained the support of members of the Progressive Conservative party, and the leader of the Social Credit group; but I was sorry that the spirit and objective of the debate was more or less violated by the introduction of a political issue.
Through its inaction I believe the government has permitted a bad situation to develop, a situation which is creating a bad odour in Canada. The whole press is airing it, much to our discredit, and no doubt it is being aired in the United States and throughout the world. I do not think it improves our standing in the united nations to have appearing in our daily papers reports which sound like descriptions of scenes from "Uncle Tom's Cabin", which remind one of the old slave markets where girls were put up at auction with someone looking at their muscles and someone else looking at their teeth.
The result is most humiliating, and the whole problem is not being met, because it is a problem of taking care of several things, namely the need for labour in Canada and for a policy of immigration, and the further need of doing something for the displaced persons who require refuge. We are going back, instead of ahead. We are not being creditably represented by our actions-and I think we have brought this on ourselves.
However I believe the government is grateful to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) for doing something about a situation which the government itself has failed to meet. Now the government is taking credit for its high humanitarian ideals in receiving these people. I do not believe it has any right to do that. Personally if I must choose between letting the hon. member for Beauce do something and no one doing anything, I would say, "Let Dionne do it." But I do not think that is a choice we should have to make. The choice is between Canada's facing up to her responsibilities, and letting someone else face up to them. Personally, 
I am glad someone is doing something, but I do not think the right people are doing it or that it is being done in the proper way.
The government should not now be sensitive about criticism, after all these months have passed and no one has done anything in particular. I have on my desk Hansard for 1945, and I open this volume at the proceedings of November 20 of that year where I raised the question with respect to bringing children from Europe. I asked this question of the then minister of national health and welfare:
I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sorry that I did not have a chance to give him notice of this question. In view of the appalling conditions prevailing in Europe, and the certainty of death from starvation facing millions of children there, what steps are being taken to give refuge to the children of the stricken countries and bring them to this country?
And the then minister said:
I do not know that the question properly falls within the scope of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare.
Then I persisted and asked the question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who replied at some length, telling me that there was no transportation, that we had to bring men home from overseas and that that was not the time to think about saving children in Europe.
That was on November 20, 1945. I have another reference, so that my skirts are clear, so far as this thing goes; and so far as I was concerned it was not a political issue. And I, personally, have undertaken the responsibility of keeping ten children alive in Europe, myself, this year.
I believe that we do have a responsibility, and that there are a number of things concerning which all are agreed:
1.	We are agreed as to the misery;
2.	We are agreed as to our responsibility;
3.	We are agreed that Canada can take people; and the fact that one person has been able to take 100 indicates the truth of that assumption, and
4.	I believe we are agreed that there is need for immediate action, because every member has evidence that people who once had filed application forms are now dead. That is because we have not moved quickly enough.
I am sure every hon. member has in his desk files of letters from people in his constituency who wish to bring in cousins, nephews, nieces or in-laws, but who have not

Labour Conditions
been permitted to do so because of the regulations of the government. While those regulations were improved, they were not implemented with proper machinery for screening people out of these depressed areas.
It was left to the hon. member for Beauce to find the machinery, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for being able to do something the government would not do. I, personally, am glad that 100 people are coming; but I think there should be a thousand.
And hon. MEMBER: Thousands.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It should be the government that is bringing them, not one industrialist. Personally, I am glad that the nuns have taken care to look after them, for God knows there is not enough housing in this country for Canadians, themselves. People who have been here for many years cannot get housing. There are families living in chicken coops, families living in improvised garages, and there are thousands of families doubled up with their in-laws, and tearing their hair every day. And then we wonder why we have broken homes! We are short of housing, and I do not know what these girls would do if someone did not do something about housing them. I, for one, have no objection to anyone taking these people in who will take them. But I want to remind the house that we had thousands of families asking to bring relatives into their homes and to assimilate them in their communities, but the government did not find the means or the machinery to enable those people to come. We could have had them today, if we had taken the necessary action.
There are some aspects of the matter which have not yet been considered. Not only must we justify our action, but we must justify our motives and our methods. I believe that our whole development in law has to do with method, and that parliament itself is a monument to method in conjunction with a certain thing we call procedure, based upon justice.
I believe that we have an excellent example of our development in law in the Nuremberg trials. Not only were we interested in justice; we established the most elaborate machinery to carry out the method to see that the ends of justice were served. It is not that we object to people coming into this country- I resent those who get up and say that the C.C.F. is making a political issue of this when they are simply covering up their own failures-we welcome people coming into this country; we have urged for two years now that we bring people in, give them refuge and assistance. But we do say that we must use methods which are compatible with our
British traditions of justice, and we must not violate those things which we have built up over the decades and centuries. That is what we object to.
We say that we have not met the problem by letting the hon. member for Beauce do what we should have done ourselves. I am not so much interested in whether that hon. member is paying the passage of these girls. I think it is pretty well established, after we have read the evidence leading up to the contract and the contract itself-this may not be clear but we suspect it-that the difference between the minimum wage and the lump sum will somehow be worked out to consider the passage money. The correspondence is misleading and not reassuring.
If the hon. member for Beauce is paying the passage, then we are at fault. In the case of the Polish soldiers we let somebody else pay the passage. We let the impoverished British government pay the passage of those soldiers and now we are letting the hon. member for Beauce do it. We are sitting back and refusing to do our share to help the displaced persons of Europe find a home. That is the crux of the situation. We still have not met our obligations, and the government must see to it that the machinery which was made available to the hon. member for Beauce to examine these people in regard to their health is extended so that more people can come in more quickly.
I hope that we will canvass the people who need labour because I am sure there are many having labour difficulties. In some industries there is a shortage of labour. I am sure there are many homes which would take these people. I have a file of letters I received when I went on the air last year during the time placed at the disposal of hon. members to speak to their constituents. At that time I made a plea for the displaced children of Europe. I asked my listeners to write to me and tell me whether they would take a child into their homes and raise it as their own child. I had letters by the dozen, not only from German people wanting German children and from French people wanting French children, but from Scotch people wanting Polish children. Some people wrote in and said that they thought Poland had suffered the most of all and they wanted to help those who had lost more than others. We could have placed thousands of children if we had the machinery to allow the gratitude and sympathy of the people of Canada to flow to Europe and to bring back people who needed help and refuge.
Labour Conditions

Not only have we a responsibility to the people who are strong and most able-if we take only those who can work in our factories and our mills we still have not met our obligations as a Christian nation-but we have also obligations to the people who are broken and ill and we should accept our share of that part of the displaced persons camps. We should not take only those who are able to work in our factories. Having certain industrialists go over to screen off the healthy people and bring them back here is not meeting the situation.
I urge the government not to try to make this-fi political issue. One thing I am getting awfully tired of in Canada is the practice that began to get popular after the last war. Every time anyone complained about rising prices, every time anyone raised the question of employment or old age pensions he was called a communist. It was thought that by washing him out you could wash out his objections. That is a petty, silly and childish move, but a few people still swallow it and a few people are still willing to use it. I hope that the government will not attempt it. I hope that members of other parties will not use it, because it is a pretty thin and weak argument.
We have a moral responsibility that we should meet. We should not leave this matter to the hon. member for Beauce; we should not leave it to private individuals or industrial concerns. Canada as a nation has the responsibility of bringing the people who need homes into touch with the people who want labour. Canada should provide the transportation, the medical facilities for examination and, through the immigration branch establish citizenship rights for these people whom we hope some day will be grateful not to the hon. member for Beauce, but to Canada as a great Christian nation because she has met her obligations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not going to intervene in the debate, but I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver East would move on behalf of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the motion be withdrawn? That would be following the usual procedure.


Angus MacInnis: Since the debate is
finished and the purpose for which the motion was moved accomplished, I am sure that the hon, member would wish to have the motion withdrawn and I would ask that it be done with the consent of the house.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member the consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Coldwell) withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ARGUE:: What is the present method used by the Department of National Revenue in calculating a farmer's total income tax for the years 19411946 in the event of the farmer not previously having filed a return?
Mr. CHEVR1ER:
If the farmer has kept full financial records of his operations, the income tax assessments are based on such data.
Where the farmer has kept inadequate or negligible records it is necessary to reconstruct his income by examination of the growth in the surplus of his assets over liabilities, by analyses of such data as to income as can be secured from reliable sources and from such partial records as to income and expenditure as he has actually maintained. There is no one method of doing this which can be applied uniformly in -all cases, but the procedures conform as closely as possible to recognized accounting principles.


HOUSING-VETERANS-STRATFORD, ONT.
Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	What was the cost of the land on which the V.L.A. houses at Stratford, Ontario, were constructed ?
2.	What was the unit cost of the houses constructed on this land?
3.	Was a caretaker employed to heat these houses during the winter of 1946-47?
4.	If so, what was the cost of his services and of the land?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	$3,628.
2.	House costs not yet finally determined by cost inspection and audit division of treasury.
3.	Yes, two caretakers were employed.
4.	Caretakers, $1,200; land $3,628.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have voluntarily left the force since January, 1946?
2.	Of these, how many retired at the expiration of their respective attested periods of service?

Questions
3.	Of those retired, how many had (a) 5 years' service or over; (b) 10 years' service or over; (c) 15 years' service or over?
4.	How many recruits have joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police each month sinoe January, 1946?
5.	How many applications by prospective recruits have been received since January 1, 1946?
6.	Is the force conducting an active campaign of recruitment?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	246.
2.	109.
3.	(a) 45; (b) 11; (c) 28; the remaining 25 had under 5 years' service.
4.	January	 2
February	 25
March	 33
April	 44
May	 10
June	 7
July	 18
August	 8
September	 12
October	 11
November	 12
December	 35
January	 72
February	 89
March	 62
April	 81
May 20	 45
Total	 566
5.	8,166.
6. No, not since April 25, 1947. Applicants since that time have been placed on the waiting list.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. REID;
What steps have been taken by the government with respect to offering a second series of Canada savings bonds this year?
Mr. MAYHEW:: The question of a second series of Canada savings bonds to be offered in the autumn as a continuation of similar offerings last year and of victory loan offerings in previous years, has been under consideration. It is clear that the Canada savings bond received a welcome and widespread response last year as an avenue for encouraging and assisting regular savings programmes of individuals, and of providing a safe and readily redeemable small savings bond. It appears desirable to continue to
provide facilities for such purposes, and it has been decided in principle, therefore, that a second series will be offered this autumn, on much the same basis as last year. Details of the issue have not been finally worked out, but will be announced at some appropriate time in the future.


DIONNE SPINNING MILLS.-LABOUR SHORTAGE
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Did the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Arthur MacNamara, communicate with the regional employment office in Montreal, on or about November 23, 1946, regarding alleged labour shortage in the Dionne Spinning Mills of St. George, Beauce, P.Q.?
2.	If so, when will the minister table a copy of the report?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to table a copy of the report, which is considered to be a privileged document. It is a report of an employee to a superior officer, and it is not customary to table such reports in tlhe House of Commons.


EMPIRE DEFENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government been consulted or advised of the proposals as made May 16 in the parliament of Great Britain by the Foreign Secretary, the Right Honourable Mr. Bevin, that Britain will withdraw her empire defences and military bases in the Mediterranean, Suez and Middle East and such areas considered a United States responsibility?
2.	If so, what action did or will Canada take in the matter?
3.	Has a survey been made of the grave danger to Canada's defences by this action?
4.	Did the so-called Canada-American defence board suggest it or approve of all this?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	The Canadian government is not aware that Mr. Bevin on May 16 proposed the withdrawal of empire defences and military bases in the Mediterranean, Suez and Middle East and such areas as are considered to be a United States responsibility.
2 and 3. Answered by 1.
4. No.


INDIA AND SUEZ CANAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any action been taken by Canada with respect to the proposed abandonment of India in 1948, the Suez canal and the situation in India?
2.	If so, what stand did Canada take herein?
Questions

Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	It is assumed that the words "the proposed abandonment of India in 1948" are intended to refer to the proposed transfer to India in 1948 of complete powers of self-government in domestic and external affairs.
Canada has appointed a high commissioner to India who will have the duty of keeping in touch with the government of India; of keeping it informed of the views of the Canadian government on questions of common interest and of keeping the Canadian government informed of the views of the Indian government on such questions; and of watching over the interests of Canada and of Canadians within India.
2.	As regards the attitude of the Canadian government to the transfer to India of selfgoverning powers, the Suez canal and the situation in India, there is nothing which can be added to the replies which were made on February 10 and February 24 to similar questions by the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION-ADMISSION OF EUROPEAN RELATIVES OF CANADIANS
George Hugh Castleden: How many applications have been received by the immigration branch from September 1, 1945 to March 31, 1947, from residents of the province of Saskatchewan for the admission of relatives in Europe to Canada?


Mr. McILRAITH:: No statistics are kept of such applications and therefore the information is not available.


UNITED NATIONS-PALESTINE COMMITTEE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Canada any representative on the united nations committee dealing with Palestine? If so, who is it?
2.	Has anybody been appointed as adviser? If so, whom; what experience has he had in foreign affairs and has he ever travelled in Palestine?
3.	What function, if any, has Canada to perform in dealing with this matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes. The Hon. Mr. Justice I. C. Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Leon Mayrand of the Department of External Affairs has been named alternate to Mr. Justice Rand.
2.	No.
3.	Canada having been chosen as a member of the special committee on Palestine, the Canadian government was invited by the secretary-general of the united nations, in a communication from which extracts were read
by me in this house on May 22, to name a representative and an alternate to serve on the committee. The Canadian representative has not been instructed by the Canadian government concerning the policy he is to advocate or support. The Canadian government associates itself with the principle defined in the communication of the secretary-general that members of the committee should act impartially and conscientiously, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter of the united nations.


* WHEAT-ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS -INITIAL PRICE
Mr. BURTON:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the interproviueial farmers union council of the united farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section) and the Alberta farmers union, regarding increasing the initial price of wheat?
2.	If so, what action has the government taken in the matter?


Mr. MacKINNON:: I might answer this question verbally. The first part of the question is:
Has the government received a request from the interprovineial farmers union council of the united farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section) and the Alberta farmers union, regarding increasing the initial price of wheat?
A letter came in from Mr. Bickerton, of the provincial farmers union council, and it is possible that the Alberta farmers union have made a similar request but I have been unable to locate any letter.
The other part of the question is:
If so, what action has the government taken in the matter?
The answer to that is: No action to date.


PASSPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: Why is a passport a confidential document?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, the answer would, of course, be that a passport is not a confidential document. The application for a passport contains statements which are made by the applicant to the department in order to obtain the passport, and it is considered, unless there are special reasons for publicizing such information, that it should be treated as confidential. Likewise the fact that an applicant has requested or obtained a passport is generally regarded as a matter to which publicity should not be given under ordinary circumstances. The document itself is, of course, not of a confidential nature and the holder is free to disclose its contents to any person.

Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any changes been made recently in the form of passports issued by the Department of External Affairs? If so, what changes?
2.	What are the express words and text used now in the passports, and on what statute, usage or customs is it based?
3.	Have any objections been received regarding it, and from whom?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.


R.C.A.F.-STRENGTH, AIRPORTS, ETC.
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What is the present strength of the R.C.A.F. with regard to (a) officers; (b) N.C.O.'s; (c) airmen?
2.	How many of these men are on (a) actual flying duties; (b) maintenance work; (c) administrative duty?
3.	What airports are now being operated by the R.C.A.F.?
4.	What is the strength of the R.C.A.F. in each pf the provinces?
5.	Are any R.C.A.F. personnel stationed elsewhere than in Canada?
6.	If so, where and in what numbers?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has agreed to drop items 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this question and I have undertaken to give him the information. As regards items 1 and 2, I should like the question to stand as an order for return.


R.C.A.F.-BENEVOLENT FUND
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many R.C.A.F. members benefited from the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund prior to Y-E day?
2.	How many R.C.A.F. veterans were recipients of aid from this fund since V-E day?
3.	What have been the total disbursements from this fund (a) prior to V-E day; (b) subsequent to Y-E day?


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	Is there an official route across Canada serving the purpose of or called a trans-Canada highway?
2.	How much money, since 1931, has been
granted by the federal government in construction costs, etc., by provinces for (a) the trans-Canada system; (b) other highway construction; (c) bridges; (d) railway overpasses or subways ?	.
3.	How many miles of paved highways in each province can be construed as being part of a trans-Canada highway?
4.	Were road construction grants made by the dominion government to each province since April 1, 1944?
5.	If so, what grants and on what terms or conditions was each separate grant made?
G. What highway or bridge building grants to each province are included in 1947-48 estimates of the federal government?


CANADIAN OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS
Mr. MERRITT:: 1.	How many active and reserve army officers and other ranks are on the instructional establishments or staffs of each university C.O.T.C.?
2.	How many days or hours of duty were carried out during the training season 1946-47 to date by each reserve army member of such staffs or establishments?
3.	(a) For how many such days or hours of duty were the reserve army personnel paid;
(b)	was there during the fiscal year 1946-47 any change in the maximum number of days' pay authorized for such reserve army personnel;
(c)	if so, what was such change?


CANADLAN REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 1.	What are the names of Canada's ambassadors and ministers in foreign countries?
2.	In countries where we have no diplomatic representatives, what are the names of trade representatives?
3.	What was the education, training and experience of these various representatives at the time of appointment?
4.	What is their length of service since appointment, and in what places?



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD

Mr. REID:: '
1.	What ports and harbours in Canada are now' managed, operated and controlled by the National Harbours Board?
2.	What ports and harbours in Canada are not operated by the National Harbours Board?
3.	Has there been any change made by the National Harbours Board in the financial arrangements or in the financial policies which have applied to the said ports and harbours referred to in questions 1 and 2?
4.	In what amounts have the said ports referred to in questions 1 and 2 been relieved of their respective debts either as to interest or principle or both, indicating the name of the port and the amount of debt from which each respective port has been relieved?
5.	What total expenditures have been made in each of the said ports since inception of the National Harbours Board?
6.	What are the revenues from each of the said ports, showing in full and in detail the rates, charges and other levies imposed by the harbour authorities on ships, cargoes, foreshore and land rentals and any other rates, levies or charges made, or revenues secured in each of the said ports and harbours?
7.	What is the total indebtedness of each of the said ports?
Inquiries of the Ministry



VETERANS AFFAIRS-SUPERVISOR OF COUNSELLING AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING, QUEBEC

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the detailed military record of J. A. Gagnon, supervisor of counselling and vocational training, Department of Veterans Affairs, at Quebec?
2.	What is (a) his education; (b) his experience to fill such position?



INQUIRY AS TO POLYMER CORPORATION OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MURPHY (Lamb ton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of statements in the press today to the effect that the drop in the price of crude rubber may affect operations at the Polymer Corporation, is the minister prepared to make a statement to the house at this time? I learned about this just before three o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker,
I have seen only one press report of the kind referred to and that was in the London, Ontario, Free Press, reading as follows:
Ottawa, June 1. Despite a break in the price of crude rubber, reflecting a rebound in production, operations at Polymer Corporation at Sarnia, a crown-owned synthetic rubber plant, will be unaffected.
During the past ten days or so, prices on far eastern natural rubber have slipped sharply, and this gave rise to reports that the great Sarnia industry would be closed down.
Today an official government source said flatly that any such stories were untrue.
Admittedly the decline in the price of crude had affected that of the synthetic product, but, said the official spokesman, Polymer still could face competition from natural rubber.
The break in crude had been expected this year, but it had not been anticipated that it would come quite so soon. Unless cut-throat price tactics developed, there was little to fear in the market trend, it was stated.
The Polymer concern is operated in the manner of a private company, but comes under the jurisdiction of Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Reconstruction. This coming week directors of Polymer are expected to confer with the minister. Doubtless the market trend will be discussed, but the Free Press was assured that the meeting was to be "entirely routine."
I did not prepare this press report, but I would consider it wholly accurate.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 26, consideration of I he motion of Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley for the second reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when consideration of this measure was adjourned on the 26th of May I had just commenced to speak on penitentiary reform.
I was dealing first with a few suggestions in connection with penitentiary reform, and my first was that the system now in effect requiring regular reports to be made each month should be discontinued in so far as it requires reports to be made almost indefinitely. Some restriction should be placed on reporting, limiting it to a period of, say one year, and so far as those who have served in the armed forces are concerned the requirement in that direction should be removed.
Again, when we discharge men from the penitentiaries they go out equipped with a suit-


Mr. TUSTIN:: A suit which everyone
recognizes.


John George Diefenbaker: A suit which everyone recognizes, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) points out, and a pair of shoes which can be identified by all. The result is that the man goes out into civilian life ostracized by his own appearance, with the mark of Cain definitely upon him. Why not equip these men with a suit of clothes and a pair of shoes that will not reveal the fact that they have but shortly before been discharged from the penitentiary? I have spoken to men who have expiated their crimes, and that is one thing they have asked for above everything else, the opportunity of going out into society without being branded by their appearance.
I have taken occasion, as hon. members in all parts of the house have, to read in Hansard the debates during the last fifteen years dealing with the question of penitentiary reform. The hon, member for Broad view (Mr. Church) throughout the years has made a great contribution and has repeatedly asked that the grand jury have the opportunity and privilege of visiting penal institutions on each occasion prior to the assizes. The grand jury does not exist in many parts of our country, but there should be some form of inspection.
Over the years the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has made his contribution, and as I read the records I think of one who, over the years, made her contribution. She is no longer a member of this house. I refer to Miss Agnes MacPhail. All these members, and many others who are here today but who were not here ten or fifteen years ago, have made their contributions.

Penitentiary Act
Never was I more impressed with the necessity of there being some form of inspection than by the information which I have received in recent weeks regarding one Canadian institution which does not come under the control of the Department of Justice. I am referring to detention institutions. If the information brought to my attention in respect of one of these is in accordance with the facts it deserves the earliest possible inspection by a man like the gentleman who now presides over the penitentiary service. I refer to Nacnab island near Halifax. It is a naval and army detention institution. The information I have received reveals depressing stories of severity which deserve inspection and consideration by our penail authorities. I should like to see this institution inspected by General Gibson. He should be allowed to go through the place and interview all those confined there as is the case in the other detention camps. He should be permitted to do it confidentially, so that each individual will feel free to report on the conditions that he wishes to report on without having his identity revealed by the fact that he was interviewed by General Gibson.
There was a matter mentioned the other day that had to do with a question asked by a most distinguished practitioner at the criminal bar, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). In the course of his speech he asked the question whether or not consideration was being given to a law such as is to be found in the state of New York where, after four convictions for a definite type of crime, a man is removed from circulation. To this the minister replied:
The hon. member will find that consideration was given to that recently.
I do not know what the result of the consideration was but, having regard to its operation, I hope the answer was in the negative, although the answer given by the minister would indicate that favourable consideration had been given to it. To accept the necessity for a measure such as that at this time when the work of reformation has not been given a chance and the new plans as set out by General Gibson have not been experimented with, if you like, would be a retrograde and defeatist attitude. It is true that that law is in effect in the state of New York. It is known as the Barnes law. In Britain as well there is a similar law known as the Habitual Offenders Act, but it was brought in only after about twenty-five years of reformation having been undertaken, when it was definitely assured that, so far as
repeaters were concerned, there was no hope of reformation, regardless of what the state might do.
In any event, my reading of Cohen's Criminal Cases in Britain reveals that the court of appeal views with the utmost care the application of that law. I find, too, that when juries come to realize that a conviction for a fourth offence will mean imprisonment for life, or, as in Great Britain, for a period of ten years, they do what they do everywhere in the world when they realize that a law is unfair and unjust; they interpret that law, not in the light of the law, but in the light of their desire to carry out the principles of justice. Regardless of the evidence, they will, in the circumstances, acquit.
If the minister has looked into this question I suggest he will find that now is not the time for such an act. We are twenty-five, thirty-five, forty years behind in Canada in comparison with other parts of the world in the matter of penitentiary administration. In a large proportion of the cases we have failed to provide reformation. I mention the inspection because, after all, inspection shows what can be done. I mentioned that the other evening. But let us first bring in this new system that General Gibson suggests. Then, after a period of ten or fifteen years, if it is found that reformation will not operate in certain cases, consideration might be given to bringing in an automatic life-term forfeiture piece of legislation.
I cannot quite understand why the government saw fit to depart from one of the major recommendations of the Archambault commission, namely, that of a commission of three. On May 3, 1939, the hon. member for Broadview asked the then minister of justice, the late Mr. Lapointe, what action would be taken to appoint a commission under the law in that regard which received royal assent on April 25, 1939. The answer was that it would be constituted in due time. Well, years have gone by. During the war the excuse was that a war was on, and I am not saying that it was not a good excuse. That was the explanation. Then, by an amendment to the Penitentiary Act, we set up a commission to reinvestigate what a commission had already spent a long period of time investigating. It recommended that the royal commission which heard evidence all over Canada and throughout various parts of the world and based its recommendation on a commission of three, should be departed from. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) that this is not the time to make such a change. The commission
Penitentiary Act

of three, composed of outstanding men, one of whom is today the Chief Justice of Ontario, trial division, Mr. Chief Justice McRuer, apparently has not changed his mind in that regard. However, the recommendation is to be changed.
I suggest that even yet the government should return to the principle of a three-man commission rather than adopt that of a one-man commission with two assistants, whose work will be of a scientific nature. Some say to me, what difference does it make? The other day the minister asked my hon. friend what difference it would make whether it was a one-man or a three-man commission. What the minister is trying to do is to lay the foundations for a new and better penological system than we have ever had before. With one in charge, in the nature of things he is more or less hampered by the attitude of the department or the minister. With three, there is a division of responsibility. Three are in a position to say, "We are going to carry out what, we think is right. We are being placed in charge and we are going to administer the system." But with one man, the responsibility falls on him; and whatever his views may be and however desirous he may be of carrying out the best system and bringing into effect the latest in scientific penological knowledge that is available, over and above him he has a stratum which he must break through, namely a group of individuals who have been administering the law over the years. All of us, being human, believe that what has been good enough for the last twenty or thirty years should not be changed all at once. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to that matter and place before the house and the country in the fullest possible way the reason why he has seen fit to depart from a recommendation which has been made by the Archambault commission and which has been generally accepted everywhere in this country by gaol and penitentiary welfare associations, by penitentiary chaplains who are close to the problem, and also by the wardens of the several penitentiaries.
I now pass on to the next phase. One of the recommendations which the hon. member for Davenport has pressed for over the years has been the bringing into effect of the Borstal system. He has visited the great gaols in the United Kingdom. He has studied the operation of the Borstal system. He has added the weight of his authority and experience to the recommendations of the commission. But we are today no nearer having that system than we were in 1938. Of course the reason for that is that under the British
North America Act there is a division of power regarding penological institutions, whereby gaols and reformatories are under provincial jursidiction and penitentiaries are under federal jurisdiction. But the Archambault commission recommended that the Borstal system be brought in. That recommendation must have been made after consultation with the attorneys general of the various provinces. That recommendation could be earned out by agreement between the federal authorities and the provinces. When the minister replies, I think he should frankly tell the house and the country whether he has been in communication with the provincial attorneys general and what has been done in this regard; because it is a matter of only a few years ago when- according to Mr. McRuer, K.C., as he then was, and as I understand the speech that he made-without exception the various provincial authorities were willing that this be carried into effect.
This is one of the matters which should have come before the dominion-provincial conference in any event. If the government or members of the opposition realized that this was a problem, the solution of which would have a bearing on determining the number of votes, more attention would be given to it. Under those circumstances, this would have been a problem which would have come before the dominion-provincial conference. Apparently it never did. It is true that it concerns the welfare of some 3,600 convicts, but they are human beings too. We talk about recidivists and how they keep coming back three, four and five times. But, sir, where the kind of treatment is accorded which can be given by a warden who is moved by humane feelings, the number of recidivists is always greatly reduced.
I personally have had some little experience over the years with regard to criminal jurisprudence, and I have not seen, in my experience, one instance of an individual who was either convicted and sent to the penitentiary or acquitted after being charged, who ever again became involved in the commission of crime. I think it is a matter of the personality of the individual. There is a difference in wardens.
W'hen you take prisoners from one jurisdiction and move them into another, the statistics of the jurisdiction into which they are moved do not show the true facts.
With regard to the Saskatchewan penitentiary, amongst the convicts from those two provinces who have come into that institution there have been few recidivists. When you place dangerous criminals and repeaters in
[Mr. Diefenbakcr. i

Penitentiary Act
those institutions, you not only undermine the discipline of the place, but also destroy the possibility of reform on the part of many with whom the experienced convicts come into contact.
Now is the time to call a dominion-provincial conference in this regard, so that once and for all we may settle this problem, and the dominion may go as far as it can in carrying out, in association with the provinces, the recommendations of the Archambault commission. Unless you bring that system in, you are building from the roof down. While you may be able to build some kind of place in that way, you can never build as you could if you laid a foundation. You are starting in on the superstructure and using the old foundation. But you cannot hope to achieve the results that could be achieved if you started out once and for all today to bring in a system which has been recommended and which has been found successful in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom tried this thirty-nine years ago. They brought in a new system. They departed from the Old Testament principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Cruel and unfair punishments were abolished 100 years ago, but unfairness still continued, and cruelty was perpetrated on prisoners. Then came the new era and the result has been this. There have been few recidivists, and 17,000 individuals who committed the most serious offences against the criminal law of Great Britain have in the last twenty-five years been completely reformed and become first-rate citizens in that country.
I am just advancing suggestions that have come to me as a result of my own small experience. You put a man in jail; he serves his term, and the mark is on him. At the end of his term he comes out, and over the years his record comes up. These men become cowards, fearful of a revelation being made. If they go to an employer, unless they have assistance from some organization, and tell of their prison records, they are under suspicion. If they are discharged from prison and have to report regularly, finally they have to let the employer know. There is no one to care for them after they leave the penal institutions. Sometimes that information being given an employer results in the dismissal of the individual, and he is on his way back to another penal institution because there are few reformative institutions available to him. That brings me to the next point. Our criminal code is, in large measure, outmoded. The last major amendment was in 1892, when codification took place. Punishments totally out of keeping with present-day conditions are still provided. Modern scientific developments in psychology, psychiatry and sociology have no place in the administration or application of the criminal code. The law of insanity is still tire law of 104 years ago. In the report, reference is made to provision for taking mental cases out of the penitentiaries and sending them to mental institutions. That may be so today, but it was not a fact two or three years ago; for in Prince Albert penitentiary there was a criminal with homicidal tendencies, mentally deficient, who the authorities were warned over a considerable period of time was dangerous. He was kept there; the authorities did not pay any attention to the objections raised. Finally he brutally stabbed one of the warders, Mr. Charles Chisholm, who was saved by one of the lifers who was prepared to give his life for the warder. After that a change was made; but I could name a prisoner, though I am not going to, who was found to be mentally deficient and dangerous fifteen years ago, but who is still confined in that institution along wdth the other prisoners.
I suggest that each prisoner, as General Gibson has stated, should be carefully examined and, where there is serious doubt-not assumed doubts-he should be transferred to the care of an institution where psychiatrists will be able to study his case and perhaps bring about a restoration of his mental faculties. In the mental hospital at North Battle-ford great work is being done in that regard. Today when we were speaking of immigration I thought of the man there who, under the leadership of Doctor Nelson, is doing that work. He was a Czech refugee in 1939, and started a system of psychological experimentation. He was educated in Vienna under Freud, and has brought back quite a number to a realization of their wrongdoing and a desire for reformation, through the removal of fears which originally drove them to the commission of crime.
I spoke about a start. I suggest to the minister that the criminal code be amended to provide that no man may be imprisoned by reason of his poverty, because of his inability to pay a fine. I have spoken about this on previous occasions. One sees it regularly. You have seen it in your practice, Mr. Speaker; every member of this house who is a member of the bar has seen cases rvhere fines are imposed with jail terms as
Penitentiary Act

the alternative. An individual who is unable to pay because of poverty is liable to imprisonment, and in many cases suffers imprisonment for this one reason.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Go on.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not deal with the other matters I had in mind, but I have one other suggestion in that connection. Imprisonment because of inability to pay a fine has been done away with in Great Britain. Let us do away with it in Canada. Failure to pay a fine should not give poverty a compulsory passport to imprisonment. The individual who is imprisoned for some petty offence serves his term and is marked, and from that point many of them start on the downward path on account of the ostracism which is shown to individuals who have suffered incarceration because of the commission of offences. People do not separate the different offences and say, "Well, it was a picayune matter." All they understand is that the individual has served a term.
My concluding words are in reference to the staffs. However well disposed we may all be toward the matter of reformation; whatever our desire may be to improve the administration of criminal law, the work finally will rest upon those charged with that administration. As far as the two commissioners who will operate along with General Gibson are concerned, there should be available outstanding psychologists, penologists or educators. Advances are being made by the provinces. Ontario has made great advances in the last two years under the Hon. Mr. Dunbar. I pay tribute to what has been done in Saskatchewan even in the last few months as a consequence of the momentous report which was made by the Doctor Lay-cock commission in regard to the question of penal reform. We should recruit for these institutions men and women trained in social and penological science. The universities have many students, overseas men who have returned to this country, who would be only too willing to undertake that type of study, if they were given the opportunity. If this plan of reformation is to be set up, and if we do not have the proper personnel, we are again in the position where, while we have the letter of the law, the spirit will not and cannot be carried out.
I am glad that, under the report, consideration is to be given to increasing the salaries of guards. Major consideration should be given to that matter. There may be some who will say, "You advocate cutting expenses, but at the same time you advocate increasing salaries". I have never advocated increases before. I have never preached both ways. But if we are to make the penal institutions of this country worthy of the responsibility which will rest upon them, I submit, first, that we shall have to come back to the system which prevailed prior to the thirties, whereby the employees will be placed under the Civil Service Act.
I know what the arguments against this would be. But these employees want permanency. If the government wants to recruit the best men it will have to meet the rate of salaries. The present system has its shortcomings, in that efficiency is not always the basis upon which appointments are made. First, we should give opportunity to the servicemen of this and the last war, second, a training course should be provided for so as to encourage young men who have been discharged from the armed forces to go into this work. Salaries should be made attractive enough that the best may be recruited, and permanency must be assured.
I wish to thank the house for its consideration in allowing me to do what ordinarily I do not do, namely, go over the forty minutes allowed. I have endeavoured to place these few suggestions before the minister, based as they are on some knowledge of the subject. General Gibson's report is one which shows that he has devoted himself to the responsibility which has been his. It is the place of parliament at this time, when we are making changes in the Penitentiary Act, to go as far as we can to the end that we make it worthy of the challenge which must come to all of us to make those who are discharged from penal institutions reformed individuals, worthy and willing to take their place in the battle of life.


Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, during the past I have had the opportunity of listening to lawyers, preachers and teachers deal with agriculture, so that tonight for a change I think it would be all right if a farmer were to deal with justice.
The farmers in my constituency have been waiting for justice since June, 1945, and we have not got it yet. One of the reasons I rise tonight is that in my constituency two young lives have been ruined, and one has been lost. I feel, in one case particularly, it was probably on account of lack of cooperation between the dominion federal prison at Kings-

Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into supply.
He said:	Last week the house was kind
enough to consent to call some items in supply. We asked for four, but, after discussion with the leaders, we agreed to call three items tonight, not for discussion, but just to get them into committee. That would give us thirteen out of twenty.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
261. Departmental administration, $1,203,977.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May the item stand?
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
*79. Departmental administration, $227,019.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May the item stand?
Item stands.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
S49. Dominion fuel board-administration and investigations, $38,004.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May the item stand? Item stands.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Tuesday, June 3, 1947