1947-02-17

INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICE TO SI .55 PER BUSHEL PLUS CARRYING CHARGES

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make at this time with regard to wheat policy. In doing so I am speaking for my colleague the Minister of Finance as well as for myself, and I am also referring to matters that come more particularly under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.
As an important element in price control, the government, through the wartime prices and trade board, has maintained maximum prices for wheat products milled and sold in Canada for human consumption. This programme has been in effect since August 1, 1942.
These ceiling prices, very important from the standpoint of living costs during and since the war, could only be maintained if wheat were provided to processors on the basis of prices existing in the base period in the fall of 1941. It was established that the highest cash price of western wheat during the base period was 77| cents per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur. Effective on August 1, 1942, when the board's fixed initial price was increased to 90 cents per bushel, the government provided for a drawback to be paid to mills and other processors of wheat for consumption in Canada. This drawback was the equivalent of the difference between the basic price of 77$ cents per bushel and the monthly average price for western wheat. Since September, 1943, the drawback has been based upon the difference between 77| cents per bushel and the prevailing domestic price of $1.25 per bushel.
On September 27, 1943, trading was suspended on the Winnipeg futures market and the government, through the Canadian wheat board, took over all unsold stocks of wheat in commercial positions. This wheat became the property of the government with no further producer interest. These crown stocks, amounting to nearly 300 million bushels, were then used for mutual aid purposes and wheat for the domestic market. They were disposed of at approximately the prices at which they were acquired. These crown stocks lasted until January, 1945. In acquiring additional supplies of wheat for mutual aid purposes early in 1945 the government paid the board's current com-
Labour Conditions

mercial price, which was SI .46 per bushel, less an allowance for carrying charges. At that time, however, the government felt that over-all price control in Canada required the establishment of a domestic wheat price. Consequently the Canadian wheat board was directed to make wheat available for domestic consumption at 81.25 per bushel which was the fixed initial price being paid to western producers. The government continued to absorb carrying charges on domestic wheat and continued the drawback to processors to maintain the basic price of 77$ cents per bushel. This arrangement has continued up to the persent time.
This part of price control has involved the expenditure of public funds. Drawbacks paid to processors of wheat products sold in Canada have for the past three years, been running at the rate of $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 per year. Under the system in effect since August 1, 1943, millers and other manufacturers of wheat products have been required to refund all drawback which would have put them into the excess profits category.
The field of price control in Canada is being progressively narrowed and the government is of the opinion that the Canadian wheat board should no longer be required to sell wheat for domestic consumption at $125 per bushel. Accordingly the government has decided that Wheat shall be sold for domestic consumption on the same basis as provided in the United Kingdom contract. The government has therefore directed the Canadian wheat board to advance the domestic price of wheat to $1.55 per bushel plus carrying charges. This direction is effective at once.
I wish to state explicitly that prevailing ceiling prices on flour, bread, mill feeds and other wheat products are not affected by this change in the board's selling price of wheat for domestic consumption. The government, through the treasury, will continue as in the past to make wheat available to millers and other processors at prices appropriate to these ceilings. The government regards this continuation of price ceilings on flour, bread and other wheat products as a necessaiy part of its programme of orderly decontrol.
The feed wheat subsidy of 25 cents per bushel is being continued, but the increase in price to $1.55 per bushel plus carrying charges will mean an increase of slightly over 30 cents per bushel in wheat used for feed in Canada. Because of the continued overseas demand for wheat for human food, the government feels that as far as possible grains other than wheat should be used for feed purposes in this country.

I should like also to announce at this time that the Canadian wheat board is today establishing open delivery quotas for oats and barley, effective immediately for the remainder of the crop year.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Am I correct in my understanding of the minister's statement that the price to producers of wheat for that portion formerly sold for domestic purposes will now be $1.55 where it has been SI.25?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


John Bracken: And through the action of the government of bonusing millers it is not expected that the price of flour and other such products will be increased, as a result of this action by the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the house will no doubt wish to have a statement from me in connection with the conference which was held on Saturday between representatives of the United Mine Workers of America and the collieries operated by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited, Nova Scotia, over which I presided.
I regret to say that it was not possible at that conference, to find a basis of compromise between the conflicting positions of the parties.
It will be recollected that in the latter part of January I appointed the Hon. Mr. Justice W. F. Carroll, of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, a commissioner to deal with the dispute and that the commissioner's report was laid on the table of the house on February 13.
Following conferences between the parties held in Ottawa in January, in which I and officials of my department participated, the original demands of the union were reduced to three; namely, (a) a wage increase of $1.40 per shift; (b) 8 cents per ton on coal produced for the establishment of a welfare fund; (c) a 5 per cent contribution by the company on payroll to a pension fund which would also be contributed to by the employees concerned.
Prior to this, the company had made a proposal to the union that it would increase wages to a maximum of $1 per shift on the basis of an increase in production, the increase in wages to be on a graduated scale until the pre-war levels of production had been reached, at which point the maximum increase in wages of $1 would be payable.

Penitentiaries
The recommendation of the commissioner was that the increase in wages asked for by the men was justified and that there was also justification for the establishment of welfare and pension funds.
In dealing with the wage recommendation, however, the commissioner approved the proposal of the company as to the graduated increase of SI per shift based on production, the additional 40 cents to make up the total of SI.40 per shift, to be obtained by other means.
Basically, the conflict between the company and the union is one of principle. The company's position is that it cannot agree to any increase in the wage rate except on the basis of increased production. The union states that production is wholly a managerial problem and one over which the individual miners or the union have no control.
It was admitted at the conference on Saturday that the absentee problem in the collieries owned by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation was a serious one and the union representatives were willing to agree to a provision in a new contract which would obligate it to deal cooperatively and effectively with that problem as well as with the problem of production.
Production figures supplied to me recently by the office of the government coal administrator, for Dosco and associated companies, show a serious falling off in production per man days since 1939. These figures are as
follows:
Production
Production Man Days Per Man (net tons) Worked Day
net tons
1939	
6,335,282	2,626,589	2.411944	
4,992,890	3,031,417	1.651945	
4,395,673	2,822,860	1.561946	
4,660,629	2,902,241	1.61
I understand the measurement used is the
long ton.
The position of the company is that it feels it must get production back to pre-war levels in order to place its operations on a sound economic footing and that no further increase in wages can be permitted unless increased production can be obtained.
At the conclusion of the conference Saturday evening, I left the way open for representatives of the company and the union to confer with myself and departmental officials today. However, representatives of the company thought they should return to their headquarters on account of the cessation of work in the mines.
Representatives of the miners are stiilil in Ottawa and conferences are being held with them today. I have nothing, however, at the present time to report which would give hope that a solution is in sight.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has the minister a breakdown of the number of men employed on the face of the coal seam in comparison with the total number of men employed by Dosco! It is an important point.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall endeavour to get the information for my hon. friend. I have an approximate figure, but if I can get the correct figure I shall be glad to do so.



RAILWAY COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Drope, of Northumberland, Ontario, be added to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I understand this name was inadvertently omitted when the list was prepared.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table the report of General R. B. Gibson, commissioner appointed under Order in Council P.C. 1313 of April 5, 1946, to make an inquiry into and recommendations regarding the penitentiaries system of Canada.
I believe I should refer to one passage in the report, which is as follows:
The government has recently decided that for the present it is preferable to entrust the administration of the penitentiaries of Canada to a single commissioner assisted by two deputy commissioners, with a headquarters organization consisting of the inspectors and staff of the present penitentiaries branch, the inspectors being reclassified as assistant commissioners.
I should say that General Gibson did not feel he should be asked, and indeed he was not asked, to make any recommendation on the point as to whether the Archambault report should be varied in that respect. That is the decision of the government, however, which has been arrived at for reasons which we regard as good, and which will be given to the house when penitentiaries legislation is introduced later this session.
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	Has consideration been given to allowing as a medical expense within the meaning of the Income War Tax Act, the five-dollar hospital fee payable by residents of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?
3.	Have the income tax branch departments throughout the province concerned been informed of such decision?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As the five dollar payment is stated by the provisions of the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, 1946, to be a tax to be levied and collected by the province, it does not come within the express provisions of paragraph (n) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Income War Tax Act whicih provides for the inclusion in medical expenses of only payments made to medical practioners, dentists, nurses or hospitals, etc.
3.	As the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, 1946, under which the five dollar tax is payable has just come into force in Saskatchewan for the year 1947, district offices will be duly informed of the situation.


IMPORTS OF NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
Mr. BRACKEN:: 1.	Has the importation of New Zealand butter into Canada been authorized?
2.	If so, what quantities have been authorized and over what period of time?
3.	What agency or agencies are importing this butter ?
4.	What is the average price per pound?
5.	To whom is payment made, the United Kingdom government, the New Zealand government, or private agencies in either country?
6.	Was permission of the United Kingdom government required for the diversion of this butter?
7.	If so, what compensating adjustment was made by Canada with the United Kingdom?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	5,000,000 pounds will be received by February 20th and further importations up to a maximum of 12,000,000 pounds will be governed by our future domestic position.
3.	Dairy products board, Department of Agriculture.
4.	Not yet established.
5.	United Kingdom government (British ministry of food).

6.	Y'es.
7.	No direct compensating adjustment. There has been and will continue to be mutual arrangement of adjustments.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN PROVINCES ON WAR PROJECTS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What capital expenditures were made by the dominion government on war plants during the war years in: (a) Prince Edward Island;
(b)	Nova Scotia; (e) New Brunswick; (d) Quebec; (e) Ontario; (f) Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (h) Alberta; (i) British Columbia?
2.	What capital expenditures were made by the dominion government during the war years to develop electric power in: (a) Prince Edward Island; (b) Nova Scotia; (c) New Brunswick; (d) Quebec; (e) Ontario; (f) Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (h) Alberta; (i) British Columbia?
3.	What amounts were expended during the
war years by the dominion government to assist mine development in:	(a) Prince Edward
Island; (b) Nova Scotia; (c) New Brunswick; (d) Quebec; (e) Ontario; (f) Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (h) Alberta; (i) British Columbia?
4.	What amounts were spent by the dominion government on (1) army; (2) air force and (3) navy establishments during the war years in:
(a)	Prince Edward Island; (b) Nova Scotia;
(c)	New Brunswick; (d) Quebec; (e) Ontario;
(f)	Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (h) Alberta; (ij British Columbia?
5.	What was the total value of war contracts awarded by dominion government departments or crown companies during the war years in:
a) Prince Edward Island; (b) Nova Scotia; c) New Brunswick; (d) Quebec; (e) Ontario; (f) Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (li) Alberta;
(i)	British Columbia?
6.	What amounts have been spent by Wartime
Housing Limited, and how many housing units have been provided in:	(a) Prince Edward
Island; (b) Nova Scotia; (c) New Brunswick;
(d)	Quebec; (e) Ontario; (f) Manitoba; (g) Saskatchewan; (h) Alberta; (i) British Columbia?


Mr. HAZEN:: I had the opportunity of
speaking to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply about this question. I ana willing to have the first four paragraphs not answered or struck off at the present time, but I should like to have an answer to the fifth paragraph of the question. I understood the minister to say .that he would have no difficulty in obtaining this information. I reserve the right to put somewhat similar questions on the order paper at a later date if I consider it advisable. I would like to point out to the minister that on March 12, 1943, the then minister of fisheries gave the capital expenditures for companies in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. HOWE:: As I understand it, my hon. friend wishes to reduce the question to paragraphs 5 and 6?

Questions


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think those can be answered and we will proceed accordingly. I ask that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 be dropped and the remainder stand.


WAR ASSETS-SALE OF TRUCKS TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has War Assets Corporation sold or negotiated for the sale of any trucks to any foreign
country?
2.	If so, with what country did they deal?
3.	How many trucks were involved?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	With the governments of:
Belgium-direct.
China-through Canadian commercial corporation and UNRRA.
France-direct, and through Canadian commercial corporation.
Greece-through Canadian commercial corporation and UNRRA.
Hungary-through	Canadian commercial
corporation and UNRRA.
Korea-through Canadian commercial corporation and UNRRA.
The Netherlands-direct, and through Canadian commercial corporation.
Norway-direct.
Poland-through Canadian commercial corporation and UNRRA.
Southern Rhodesia-direct.
Venezuela-direct.
A'ugoslavia-through Canadian commercial corporation and UNRRA.
In addition to purchases by the govefnments of the countries listed above, exporters in Canada, United States and United Kingdom purchased trucks for export to foreign countries and UNRRA purchased trucks for use in foreign countries as indicated -below in 3 (b) and (c) respectively.
3.	22.095. disposed of as follows:-
(a)	Sold to foreign governments:-
Country

Quantity-Sold from surpluses in
Belgium, 250, The Netherlands.
China, 956, Canada.
France, 1,591, Canada, United Kingdom and The Netherlands.
Greece, 30, Canada.
Hungary, 6, Canada.
Korea, 66, Canada.
The Netherlands, 1,417, Canada and United Kingdom.
Norway, 2, United Kingdom.
Poland, 25, Canada.
Southern Rhodesia, 249, United Kingdom and The Netherlands.
Venezuela, 1,600, Canada.
Yugoslavia, 65, Canada.
Total quantity, 6,257.
(b)	Sold to exporters for export to the following countries as declared by the exporter:
Declared destination-Quantity-Sold from surpluses in Arabia, 6, Canada.
Argentina, 1,518, Canada.
Brazil, 413, United Kingdom.
Bulgaria, 1, Canada.
China, 18, Canada and United Kingdom. Colombia, 224, Canada.
Czechoslovakia, 8, United Kingdom. Europe, 60, Canada.
France, 504, Canada.
Greece, 97, Canada and United Kingdom. Palestine, 25, Canada.
Poland, 10, Canada.
Portugal, 19, United Kingdom.
Russia, 32, Canada.
South Africa, 572, United Kingdom.
South America, 5,453, Canada and United Kingdom.
Sweden, 180, United Kingdom,
Turkey, 272, Canada and United Kingdom. Venezuela, 13, Canada.
Yugoslavia, 22, Canada and United Kingdom. Total, 9,447.
(c)	Sold to UNRRA for use in the countries indicated:-
Country-Quantity-Sold from surpluses in Albania, 32, Italy.
Austria, 1,320, United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia, 2,439, United Kingdom and The Netherlands.
Finland, 200, United Kingdom.
Germany, 280, United Kingdom.
Greece, 4, United Kingdom.
Hungary, 200, United Kingdom.
Italy, 221, Italy.
Poland, 1,668, United Kingdom and The Netherlands.
Yugoslavia, 27, United Kingdom.
Total, 6,391.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-TIME SHEETS
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	For what number of days did employees of National harbours board, port of Montreal, receive pay each fortnight in the month of March, 1946?
2.	For what number of days did employees of National harbours board, port of Halifax, receive pay each fortnight in the month of March, 1946?
3.	Is there a uniform system of time sheets used?
Questions


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1 and 2. In the month of March, 1946, there were 13 working days in each half-monthly pay period and the employees at both Montreal and Halifax harbours were paid for all hours worked in those periods.
3.	No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many immigrants have been admitted to Canada during 1946, by sex and country of origin?
2.	How many refugees have been admitted to Canada from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st December, 1946?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.
Immigration to Canada, calendar year 1946 Males, 20,483; females, 51,236; total, 71,719.
Country of birth and number Africa (British), 129; Africa (not British), 53; Argentine, 35; Australia, 250; Austria, 302; Barbados, 70; Bahamas, 26; Belgium, 817; Bermuda, 47; Brazil, 20; Bulgaria, 4; Canada, 1.354; Central America, 20; Chile, 21; China, 118; Czechoslovakia, 221; Danzig, 4; Denmark, 61; Dutch East Indies, 36; Eire, 983; England, 38,991; Esthonia, 6; Finland, 18; France, 310; Germany, 758; Greece, 53; Guiana (British), 28; Holland, 2,191; Hong Kong, 22; Hungary, 123; India 353; Ireland (Northern), 761; Italy, 98; Jamaica, 154; Japan, 14; Jugoslavia, 39; Latvia, 8; Lesser
British Isles, 77; Lithuania, 6; Luxemburg, 7; Malta, 18; Mexico, 28; Newfoundland, 2,580; New Zealand, 99; Norway, 174; Palestine, 9; Peru, 16; Poland, 688; Portugal, 10; Rou-mania, 41; Russia, 142; St. Pierre and Miquelon, 11; Scotland, 8,473; South America N.E.S., 19; Spain, 30; Sweden, 45; Switzerland, 53; Syria, 7; Trinidad, 60; Turkey, 17; United States, 8,958; Wales, 1,455; West Indies (British) N.E.S., 81; West Indies (not British), 40; Others, 77; Total, 71,719.
N.E.S.-Not elsewhere specified.
2.	Information not available as refugees are not classified as such in immigration statistical compilations.


WAR ASSETS-SALE OF BUILDINGS AT NO. 10 SERVICE FLYING TRAINING SCHOOL, DAUPHIN, MAN.
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many buildings at No. .10 service flying training school, Dauphin, Manitoba, have been sold?
2.	To whom were they sold?
3.	What was (a) the original cost; (b) the sale price; of each building?
4.	Were these buildings advertised for sale? If so, between what dates?


Mr. McILRAITFI:: 1.	Forty.
2	and 3. Buildings were, sold to the following purchasers, on priority, and on condition that the purchasers remove the buildings from the sites and restore the land to its original condition:-
Number of Original	Sale
Buildings	Cost	Price
Purchaser Provincial government of
Manitoba	
Corporation of the village
of Roblin, Man	
Corporation of the town
of Dauphin, Man	
Housing enterprises of Canada limited	
2 S 9,000 S 720 00 2	37,602	3,008	164	415,652	33,252	0032	799,450	64,120	004.	No.


LOANS TO HOUSING ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	Have any loans been made to Housing Enterprises Limited during the past year by the federal government or any branch of the federal government, or government agency?
2.	If so, in what amount?
3.	What were the terms of the loan?
4.	What rate of interest is being charged?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2. No loans have been made to housing enterprises of Canada limited' but loans, as shown below, have been made to wholly owned subsidiaries of housing enterprises of Canada limited by central mortgage and housing corporation:-
Company-Amount of loan approved Housing Enterprises (Hamilton) Ltd., $585,000; Housing Enterprises (Montreal)

Questions
Ltd., $671,000; Housing Enterprises (Stratford) Ltd., $567,000; Housing Enterprises (Vancouver A) Ltd., $650,000; Housing Enterprises (Kitchener) Ltd., $596,000; Housing Enterprises (Peterborough) Ltd., $650,160; Housing Enterprises (St. Thomas) Ltd., $342,000; Housing Enterprises (Brantford) Ltd., $260,000; Housing Enterprises (Windsor) Ltd., $615,000; Housing Enterprises (Chatham) Ltd., $792,000; Housing Enterprises (Saint John) Ltd., $568,000; Housing Enterprises (Toronto A) Ltd., $174,000; Housing Enterprises (Toronto B) Ltd., $395,000; Housing Enterprises (St. Catharines) Ltd., $540,685; Housing Enterprises (Guelph) Ltd., $328,000; Housing Enterprises (Owen Sound) Ltd., $343,000; Housing Enterprises (Montreal A) Ltd., $2,163,000; Housing Enterprises (Vancouver B) Ltd., $972,000; Housing Enterprises (Saskatoon) Ltd., $271,500; Housing Enterprises (Brockville) Ltd., $274,000; Housing Enterprises (Kingston) Ltd., $464,500; Housing Enterprises (Sarnia) Ltd., $322,000; Housing Enterprises (Regina) Ltd., $570,500; Housing Enterprises (London A) Ltd., $1,014,500; Housing Enterprises (Calgary) Ltd., $569,000; Housing Enterprises (Three Rivers) Ltd., $337,500; Housing Enterprises (London B) Ltd., $245,000; Housing Enterprises (Edmonton) Ltd., $458,500; Housing Enterprises (Victoria) Ltd., $543,500; Housing Enterprises (New Westminster) Ltd., $551,500.
3.	Not to exceed 50 years from the date upon which the company receives the first advance on account of the loan. Repayable by equal annual payments of principal and interest combined, the first of such payments becoming due 12 months after the project completion date.
4.	Three per cent per annum under the provision of section 9 (2) of the National Housing Act 1944.


EXCHEQUER COURT ACTIONS SINCE 1943
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	How many Exchequer Court actions have been heard in each year since January 1, 1943?
2.	In how many actions heard in each year was judgment reserved?
3.	In how many actions heard in each year has judgment not yet been delivered?
4.	How many actions were heard by each judge of the said court in each year since January 1, 1943?
5.	In how many actions heard in each year did each judge reserve judgment?
6.	In how many actions heard in each year has each judge not yet delivered judgment?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	1943, 86; 1944, 65; 1945, 77; 1946, 89. Note: These figures do not include motions for judgment on registrar's report, or confessions, or by default, discontinuance or consent or interlocutory motions.
2.	1943, 38; 1044, 41; 1945, 51; 1946, 63.
. 1943, nil; 1944, 18; 1945,	13*;	1946,	17.. 1943	1944	1945	1946The President .... 44	34	14	15Angers, J	42	31	19	25O'Connor, J	
Cameron, J. (Dep.	10	19J. 1945) 	
Michaud, Deputy	13	12Judge 	
Smith, Deputy	11	18Judge 	10	. [DOT]. 1943	1944	1945	1946The President 	25	20	9	9Angers, J	13	21	10	17O'Connor, J	9	15Cameron, J	
Michaud, Deputy	11	9Judge 	
Smith, Deputy	* *	8	13Judge 	4	. 1943	1944	1945	1946The President	7	8	5Angers, J	11	5	11O'Connor, J	Cameron, J	
Michaud, Deputy	iJudge 	
Smith, Deputy	[DOT] *	[DOT] [DOT]Judge


PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN KINGSTON
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What is the total amount of rent paid by the government for the property known as St. Mary's on the Lake, 355 King St. West, Kingston, Ont.?
2.	After this property was acquired, what was the total amount expended on this property?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	$17,000 per annum from 1st October, 1942 to 31st May, 1946,-total $62,333.33.
2.	Alterations and preparations
for hospital accommodation.. $ 2,000.00 Fitting up premises for hospital accommodation	 11,578.00
Purchase and installation of
dishwashing machine	 750.00
Improve facilities at hospital 6,370.00 Tent floors for 24 bell tents
and one marquee	 650.00
Installation of additional electric equipment	   1,500.00
Questions

Construction of a wooden
escape stairway	 500.00
Construction of pipe line and installation of radiators		700.00
Construction of C W A C accommodation (contract)	..	94,429.90
Purchase and installation of
kitchen equipment	 840.00
Provision of outside services
for CWAC accommodation	..	32,870.25
Construction of emergency
exit from hospital	 900.00
Re-location of operating
room	 2,000.00
Construction of NCO's mess
and ante room CWAC		2,800.00
Installation of 300 gal. hot
water tank	 300.00
Alterations and additions to
nursing sisters' residence ______ 9,204.00
Installation of a steam converter heater	 613.89
Total	 $168,006.04


ROYAL COMMISSION ON COAL
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	On what date was the royal commission on coal appointed?
2.	On what date did they begin their work?
_ 3. Who were the personnel of the commission including their technical advisers?
4.	What salary or per diem allowance was paid the commission and their technical advisers?
5.	What additional expenses were allowed members of the commission and technical advisers?
6.	On what date did the commission complete its work?
7.	What was the total cost of the commission including the printing of the report?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	October 12, 1944.
2.	October 12, 1944.
3.	4 and 5. See schedule below.
6.	January 31, 1947.
7.	Accounts paid to date total $282,374.16. This amount does not include the cost of printing the report, the invoice for which has not been received.
3, 4 and 5:


SCHEDULE
[Stage Direction]
Rates of remuneration
Salaries, fees, allowances, Additional
Commissioners Hon. Mr. Justice W. F.	and allowances	etc.	expenses	TotalCarroll (chairman) ....	$25 per day living allowance	15,212 50	2.137 44	17,349 94Angus J. Morrison, Esq... Hon. Mr. Justice C. C.	25 per day salary plus	
25 per day living allowance	12,600 00 11,125 00	3,547 03	16,147 03 11,125 00McLaurin 	25 per day living allowance	18,400 00	5,951 69	24,351 69Technical Advisers	Mr. Rand H. Matheson...	7,000 per year 	5,237 78	2.908 65	8,146 43Dr. Lewis E. Young	100 per day 	18,093 73	2,658 09	20,751 82Dr. F. W. Gray	35 per day 	2,275 00	1,071 39	3,346 391. T. Donald Company Limited	
Mr. J. T. Donald $100 per day
plus assistants $25 to $30 per
day 	26,823 25	2,155 91	28,979 16Mr. F. C. Morrison	
Harvey Morrison & Com-	40 per day	1,015 00	454 55	1,469 55pany 	Principals $60 to $70 per day,	assistants $15 to $35 per day	34,129 70	2,291 75	36,421 45Vincent C. MacDonald,	K.C	50 per day Halifax, 75 per day Ottawa	1,300 00	126 31	1,426 31Mr. R. H. Wheeler 	100 per day 	1,514 79	254 34	1,769 13Mr. C. F. Trowbridge ....	Expenses only	337 81	337 81Mr. A. L. Grayburn Jr....	Expenses only	817 14	817 14Dr. T. E. Warren	Expenses only	904 49	904 49Dr. E. J. Burroughs	Expenses only	1,168 47	1,168 47Mr. Edgar Stansfield	35 per day	2,415 00	566 60	2.981 60
Questions	_____

Mr. LENNARD:: Have Trans-Canada air lines a regular service or otherwise to Gander, Newfoundland? If so, what is the service comprised of?


George James McIlraith: Yes. Trans-Canada air lines has a daily service between Moncton, N.B.' and Gander, Newfoundland. Lockheed Lodestar (14-passenger) aircraft are being operated on the following flights:-
Flight No. 140-eastbound
Leaves Moncton 	6.00 a.m.	A.S.T.Arrives Gander 	10.25 a.m.	N.S.T.Flight No. 142-eastbound	Leaves Moncton 	11.45 a.m.	A.S.T.Arrives Gander	4.10 p.m.	N.S.T.Flight No. 141-westbound	Leaves Gander 	1.50 p.m.	N.S.T.Arrives Moncton 	5.50 p.m.	A.S.T.Flight No. 143-westbound	Leaves Gander 	7.35 p.m.	N.S.T.Arrives Moncton 	11.35 p.m.	A.S.T.Note: A.S.T.-Atlantic standard time	
N.S.T.-Newfoundland standard time


PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many employees are there in the public information service or sendees?
2.	What is the total amount of expenditure for (a) salaries; (b) other expenditures, during the year 1946?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1. 121.
2.	(a) S243,905.61.
(b)	$252,846.18. These figures only relate to the employees of the former Canadian information service.


POTASH IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 
Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	At several points in the southern half of the province. Extent and volume not known.
3.	Mineral rights are vested in the province and details of any leases from Saskatchewan government not known.
4.	None other than exploratory drilling.
5.	See answer to question 4.
6.	No.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP-BRITISH INDIANS
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Will British Indians, resident in Canada
for five years or more, be eligible for Canadian citizenship?	_
2.	If not, why will they be denied such citizenship?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes, if they qualify under the provisions of section 10, subsection 2, of the Canadian Citizenship Act.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CIVIL SERVANTS-SUPERANNUATION
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has consideration been given by the gov-vernment to increasing the pensions of superannuated federal civil servants by the addition of a cost of living bonus or other supplement?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration? Is the matter receiving attention at the present time?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This question is still receiving consideration and the government's policy will be announced in due course.


CANADIAN NAVY-SHIPS BUILT, PURCHASED OR OBTAINED ON LOAN
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many ships of the Canadian navy have (a) been built in Canada; (b) acquired by purchase; (c) obtained on loan?
2.	With reference to 1(c), what ships are on loan from other countries and what are the conditions of the loan?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) 43, (b) 7, (c) 3 on loan.
The above do not include small auxiliary and miscellaneous craft such at tugs, lighters, etc.
2.	Three ships on loan from the United Kingdom-Aircraft carrier-Warrior; Destroyers-Crescent and Crusader.
Questions

Terms of loan are:-(i) Vessels lent free;
(ii)	Commissioned as H.M. Canadian ships;
(iii)	Royal Canadian Navy liable for costs of operation and maintenance.


DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS-CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Mr. DESMOND:: What was the total number of the civilian personnel engaged in (a) The Department of National Defence for Naval Services; (b) The Department of National Defence for Army;
(c)	The Department of National Defence for Air on each of the following dates; (a) September 1, 1939; (b) May 16, 1945; (e) August 18, 1945; (d) January 1, 1947?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: (a)	September 1, 1939-Navy, army, and air force-Total 1,673, (Note-Prior to the war the navy, army and air force were administered as one department and separate statistical information on civilian personnel employed in each service is not available.)
(b)	Navy-April 30, 1945, 13,646; army- May 31, 1945, 14,S67; air force-May 16, 1945, 10,530.
(c)	Navy-July 31, 1945, 13,617; Army-August 31, 1945, 11,781; Air force-August 18, 1945, 9,507, (d) Navy-January 1, 1947,- 8,131; Army-January 1, 1947, 18,000; Air force -January 1, 1947, 5,997.


CANADIAN IMMIGRATION OFFICES ABROAD
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What Canadian immigration offices are maintained abroad?
2.	Where precisely are they located?
3.	What, in detail, are the functions of such offices ?
4.	Who is in charge of each office, what salary and/or allowance is he paid, and what are his qualifications for the position?
5.	What is the total number of the staff in each office ?
6.	How many enquiries from prospective immigrants have been received in each such office?
. 7. How many applications for permission to immigrate to Canada have been received in each such office?
. 8. How many immigrants have been accepted in Canada from application made to each such office?
9. In detail, what is the actual routine through which a prospective immigrant must go from the time of his application until bis actual landing in Canada.


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Immigration offices are now located in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
2.	London, England; Paris, France; Brussels, Belgium; The Hague, the Netherlands.

3.	The commissioner of emigration, London, has supervision over all Canadian immigration staffs in Europe. In addition, the London office deals with all enquiries and applications for admission to Canada, arranges for medical examinations, establishes admissibility of prospective immigrants from United Kingdom, deals with distressed Canadians and arranges repatriation where necessary, provides transportation for servicemen's dependents, conducts necessary investigations and carries out all other work relating to immigration activities. Officers at Paris, Brussels and The Hague examine all aliens, both immigrant and non-immigrant, applying for entry to Canada, and upon establishing admissibility grant immigration visas.
4.	G. G. Congdon, commissioner, London, salary, $5,700 per annum plus $2,000.00 per annum living allowance; qualifications, years of experience in supervisory positions in the immigration service, executive ability, thorough knowledge of Immigration law, regulations and problems.
0.	Cormier, inspector in charge at Paris, J. A. Mitchell, inspector in charge at Brussels. Salary, $3,120 per annum and actual normal living expenses.
Qualifications-both officers in Europe, thorough knowledge of immigration law and regulations, fully experienced in immigration inspectional work.
C. D. Reid, inspector in charge, The Hague; salary, $3,000 per annum plus actual normal living expenses; qualifications, years of experience in inspectional work and as supervisory officer, thorough knowledge of Immigration law, regulations and inspectional procedure.
5. London-60; Paris-3; Brussels-2; The Hague-5.
6.	London office reported for year ended March 31st, 1946, over 44,000 written enquiries. Record is not taken of number of personal enquiries at the respective offices.
Offices on the continent were opened on January 1st, 1947-reports for first month's activities not yet received.
7.	As regulations do not require admissible British subjects to obtain visas overseas as a condition of admission to Canada, statistical record is not kept of this class. See answer to question No. 8 regarding recording of immigrant admissions.
S.	Immigration statistics are based on actual admissions at ports of entry and record immigrants by nationality, race, sex, conjugal status, occupation, country of last residence.
Immigrants on admission are not statistically divided by overseas offices where primarily examined.

Questions	_______
9. British immigrants from the United Kingdom and the dominions do not require to obtain immigration visas. Facilities are available in the United Kingdom for medical examination prior to departure. Canadian medical officers are stationed in London and there is an approved rpster of medical practitioners in all districts where medical examination can be obtained. Emigration office, London, and transportation agents furnish prospective immigrants with particulars regarding medical examination. Alien immigrants are required to establish admissibility and obtain Canadian immigration visas before embarking for Canada. Medical examination takes place when applicant applies for visa. Visas are granted at offices named in question 1 of this memorandum and at Canadian missions. Upon establishing admissibility immigrant receives visa and is then qualified to proceed to Canada. Admission is granted at the Canadian port of entry.


SUSSEX, N.B., MILITARY HOSPITAL
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How much was the total cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs for repairs and improvements to the Sussex military hospital, Sussex, New Brunswick, since it was taken over from the Department of National Defence?
2.	How many patients are there at present in this hopsital?
3.	What is the total number of staff?
4.	How much is paid each month in (a) salaries and wages; (b) other expenses?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	To December 31, 1946: $5,067.47.
2.	At January 31, 1947 : 96.
3	and 4 (a) At January 31, 1947: 140; $18,267.
4	(b) For month December, 1946: food, $4,053.44; other expenses, $1,542.19.


STARCH PROCESSING PLANTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeLURE:
1.	How many starch processing plants in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are operating under the agricultural prices support board program?
2.	Where are they located and what is the name of each plant?
3.	How much support is each plant receiving?
4.	What quantities of potatoes have been handled by each of these plants each month from October 1, 11946, to February 1, 1947?
5.	From whom were these potatoes purchased and what quantity from each grower?
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	At present none in Prince Edward Island, one in New Brunswick. During the fall months in 1946 there were two in Prince Edward Island and one in New Brunswick.
2.	In Prince Edward Island: Geo. E. Full and Son, Hunter River;
Geo. E. Full and Son, Murray Harbour.
In New Brunswick: F. W. Pirie Co. Ltd., Grand Falls.
3.	No financial support is given to the plants. The plants act as agents for the board purchasing potatoes from producers at SI.50 per barrel in New Brunswick and 92c per 100 in Prince Edward Island. Potatoes so purchased must contain at least 70 per cent of Canada No. 1 grade. They are sold to the plants for starch making at regular prices for potatoes used for this purpose; namely, $1.00 per barrel in New Brunswick and 60c per 100 pounds in Prince Edward Island.
4.	Records maintained on weekly, not monthly basis. Deliveries for periods most nearly approximating months are as follows:
Period-Quantity Handled Grand Falls, N.B., Plant-
Oct. 1-Nov. 2, 4,124 bbls. (680,460 lb.)
Nov. 2-Nov. 30, 30,1034 bbls. (4.967,078 lb.)
Dec. 1-Dec. 28, 31.431 bbls. (5,186,115 lb.)
Dec. 29-Feb. 1, 53,412 bbls. (8,812,980 lb.) Hunter River, P.E.I. Plant-
Oct. 1-Nov. 2, nil.
Nov. 2-Nov. 30. 2.068,370 lb. (34,473 bu.)
Dec. 1-Dec. 28, 1,157,130 lb. (19,286 bu.)
Dec. 29-Feb. 1, nil.
Murray Harbour, P.E.I. Plant-*
Oct. 1-Nov. 2. nil.
Nov. 2-Nov. 30. 1,403,155 lb. (23,386 bu.)
Dec. 1-Dec. 28, 854,830 lb. (14,247 bu.)
Dec. 29-Feb. 1, nil.
5.	Potatoes are purchased from a. large number of individual growers; cumulative record of quantity purchased from each grower is not maintained.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any programme to announce regarding immigration from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Eire?
2.	What offices have been opened there since last session for this work, and where?
3.	Has anything been done since then to admit a large number of skilled industrial workers needed, from there, by many industries in Canada?
4.	Has the question of assisted passage been considered by the government for some of these workers? If not, on what terms are they to be admitted?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	As British subjects from the British isles are admissible to Canada on compliance with three simple conditions-good health, good
Questions

character, and in possession of sufficient means to maintain themselves until employment is secured, it is not necessary to announce any particular programme with regard to such immigration.
2.	There is a Canadian emigration commissioner with a large staff located in London. Arrangements are being made to open offices in Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast shortly.
3.	The conditions of admission for industrial workers from the British isles are the same as for other classes. See answer to question No. 1.
4.	This is a matter of government policy. It is not thought necessary to consider it at this time.


BANFF NATIONAL PARK-PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES
Mr. HARKNESS:: 1.	What is the principle or method followed in placing commercial suppliers of goods on the preferred official list for business of the national park at Banff?
2.	Was the firm of T. H. Peacock, Calgary, recently cut off this list; if so, for what reason?
' Mr. GLEN:
1. There is no fixed principle or method followed in making purchases for Banff national park. The practice has been for
Unplaced applicants January 2,1947
Canada	 164,262
Prince Edward Island		1,856
Nova Scotia	 13,623
New Brunswick	 7,451
Quebec	 42,803
Ontario	 47,164
Manitoba	 11,716
Saskatchewan	 7,859
Alberta	 8,553
British Columbia	 23,237
many years to give a sufficient number of persons or firms an opportunity of tendering on purchases in order to ensure competitive bids being received.
2. Answered by No. 1.


EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. KIDD:: How many Canadians have emigrated to the United States in the year 1946?


Mr. GLEN:: No record is kept by the
dominion government of people leaving Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	How many persons were unemployed in each of the provinces as of the latest date for which statistics are available?
2.	Of these, how many in each province are war veterans?


Humphrey Mitchell: An approximation of the ' number of unemployed by provinces is indicated by the number of unplaced applicants registered in the offices of the national employment service. As against this figure the number of unfilled jobs should be considered; consequently, this information is also shown.
Unplaced
ex-service personnel- world war II December 31,1946
47,696
Unfilled
vacancies January 2,1947
90,555
1.063
6,574
3,572
6,410
12,440
4,416
3,084
3,448
6.6S9
1,595
2.644
38,437
36,868
2,917
1,626
2.554
3,794


NATIONAL SEA PRODUCTS LIMITED-TRAWLERS AND DRAGGERS
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many trawlers and draggers now owned by the National Sea Products Limited of Aova Scotia were built with government assistance?
2.	What was the total cost of each craft and
upon what terms was the assistance given by the government ?	[DOT]
3.	What depreciation allowance was made on each craft?


Mr. BRIDGES:: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
fMr. Glen.]


CALENDAR REFORM
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Did the league of nations ever consider a calendar reform?
2.	Has the government ever taken steps to study the advantages of a calendar reform?
3.	Has a committee been set up to study this matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1. Yes, at the following meetings at which resolutions were adopted in this connection:
The assemblies of the league of nations in Geneva in 1926, 1929, 1937.
The international labour conferences in Geneva in 1928 and 1936.

Questions
The international labour conference of American states in Santiago de Chile in January 1936.
The 4th general conference of communications and transit in Geneva in October 1931.
In view of the diversity of opinion, the 98th session of the council of the league of nations decided that it would not be opportune to deal with the matter of calendar reform further, and instructed the secretary-general to remove the item from its agenda.
2.	Yes. In 1924 and again in 1931 interdepartmental committees were established to study this matter. As a result of the recommendations of these committees the Canadian delegation at the 4th general conference of communications and transit supported in principle the perpetual thirteen month calendar.
3.	There is no committee at present in existence to study this matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- EMPLOYEES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the unemployment insurance commission, and what are their occupations?
2.	How many of said employees are (a) permanent; (b) temporary, in each region and what are their occupations?
3.	What steps are being taken to establish permanency for these employees?
4.	Are such employees permitted to join trade union organizations?
5.	What procedure is provided for giving attention to complaints and grievances of these employees?
6.	How many employees left the service of the commission during 1946 and for what reasons?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	As of February 1, 1947, there were on the strength of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 8,847 regular employees and 339 casual employees, total 9,186. Occupations of the regular employees follow:
Assistant manager, Assistant regional superintendent, Assistant supervising inspector, Assistant supervisor executive and professional section, Auditor, Unemployment insurance, Chief insurance officer, Chief insurance reviewing officer, Clerk, Departmental accountant, District insurance officer, Draftsman, Employment and claims officer, Employment adviser, Enforcement officer, Insurance inspector, Librarian, Junior departmental solicitor, Messenger, Manager (local office), Office boy, Office appliance operator, Packer and helper, Regional employment officer, Regional insurance officer, Regional superintendent, Re-rist.rar, Special representative, Secretary, Architect, Senior assistant supervising inspector, Stenographer, Supervising inspector of employment offices, Supervisor of inspection and training, Supervisor of office services, Supervisor of executive and professional section, Supervisor of general placements, Supervisor of veterans placements, Supervisor of special placements, Telephone operator, Teletypist, Typist, Travelling supervisor, Veterans employment adviser, Veterans officer, Supervisor of training.
The casual employees are engaged for brief periods in emergencies to deal with large numbers of claims for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act or to assist with such seasonal work as the yearly renewal of Unemployment Insurance Books.
2.	(a)	(b)Head Office 	.... 60	341Maritime Region 	.... 49	728Quebec Region 	.... 110	2,567Ontario Region 	.... 293	2,213Prairie Region 	.... 142	1,366Pacific Region 	.... 98	880Total 	
Grand Total-8,847	.... 752	8,095Their occupations are	as shown in	answer
to question No. 1.
3.	In the absence of a permanent establishment for the department, representations are made to the Civil Service Commission recommending permanency in individual cases where employees are eligible and have proved acceptable to the organizations.
4.	Employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are permitted to join trade union organizations.
5.	There is an appeal machinery set up by the department by which the employee is permitted to select through a recognized Civil Service association one member of the appeal board.
6.	During 1946, there were 2,698 separations of regular staff from the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the following
reasons:
Resigned	 2,028
Dismissed	 108
Transferred or reassigned to another
department	 79
Deceased	 25
Released in pursuance of Staff Control Regulations or cessation of certain types of	work	 458
2,698
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-APPEALS TO COURT OP REFEREES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many persons who applied for unemployment insurance benefits during (a) 1945 and (b) 1946, appealed to the court of referees after being disqualified from receiving benefits, and what are the figures for males and females separately, for each region of the unemployment insurance commission?
2.	How many of the foregoing appeals were
allowed each year in each region, males and females separately, and how many were disallowed?	,
3.	How many appeals went from each region to the umpire in each year, males and females separately?
4.	How many of the foregoing appeals to the umpire were initiated by officers of the unemployment insurance commission in each year, from each region, males and females separately?
5.	How many of the appeals to the umpire were allowed each year, by region, males and females separately and how many were disallowed ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	(a) Number of appeals heard by the courts of referees in each region for the calendar year 1945:
Maritime	 324
Quebec	 2,215
Ontario	 1,124
Prairie	 946
Pacific	 304
Total
4,913
(b) Number of appeals heard by the courts of referees in each region for the calendar year 1946:
Maritime	 922
Quebec	10,160
Ontario	 4,540
Prairie	 2,213
Pacific	 1,621
Total	19,456
2.	1945
Appeals Appeals
Region	Allowed	DisallowedMaritime 	.. 87	237Quebec 	.. 725	1,490Ontario 	.. 273	851Prairie 	.. 282	664Pacific 	.. 33	271Total	.. 1,400 1946	3,513Appeals	AppealsRegion	Allowed	DisallowedMaritime	.. 261	661Quebec 	.. 1,697	8,463Ontario 	.. 1,000	3,540Prairie 	.. 493	1,720Pacific 	.. 163	1,458Total	.. 3,614	15,8423.	1945	Appeals toRegion	the UmpireMaritime	
5Quebec	
12Ontario	
7Prairie	
11Pacific	
3Total	
38Region	Appeals to the UmpireMaritime 	
6Quebec 	
151Ontario 	
58Prairie 	
25Pacific 	
10Total 	
250*
4.
Region Maritime Quebec . Ontario Prairie . Pacific .
Umpire Appeals Initiated by the Insurance Officers
		3
		3
		3
		5
		4
Total
1946
Region	Umpire Appeals Initiated by the Insurance Officers
Maritime 			 6
Quebec 			 68
Ontario 			 27
Prairie 			 9
Pacific			 3
Total 			 113
5.	1945
Umpire Appeals
Region	Allowed Disallowed
Maritime	
3	2Quebec	
2	10Ontario	
2	5Prairie	
8	3Pacific	
1	2Total	
16	22
Questions
1946
Umpire Appeals
Region	Allowed	DisallowedMaritime	
-	6Quebec	
16	135Ontario	
30	28Prairie	
8	17Pacific	
4	6Total	
58	192
There are no figures available for a breakdown for appeals under male and female.
* This figure includes a number of appeals which are decided by test cases.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Was one of the two motion picture theatres operated by the film board in the city of Ottawa remodelled, and refurnished during 1946 or to date in 1947?
2.	If so, what was the total cost for remodelling and refurnishing this theatre?
Mr. FOUR'NIER (Hull):
1.	Yes, alterations were made to the small sound recording theatre operated by the national film board, John and Sussex streets, Ottawa, to give improved acoustics for recording purposes.
2.	Cost of remodelling-$21,141. No refurnishing done.



JAPANESE CANADIANS

Mr. MacINNIS:: Which of the restrictions on the movement and actions imposed on and after the evacuation from the Pacific coast defence zone still apply to Canadian citizens of Japanese racial origin?


Humphrey Mitchell: All restrictions have been revoked except the following which are still applicable to persons of Japanese race in Canada:
(a)	The prohibition of issue of fishing licences to persons of Japanese origin contained in order in council P.C. 251 of January 13, 1942.
(b)	The prohibition of movement by persons of Japanese origin in Canada without a permit from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police only in the following cases: (i) change of residence; (ii) entry into the coastal restricted area of British Columbia; (iii) travel for more than 50 miles in British Columbia; (iv) travel across a provincial boundary. Except for (ii), these remaining restrictions on movement are not applicable to discharged members of the armed forcer who are of Japanese origin.



ESQUIMALT DOCKYARD

Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Who is the superintendent of His Majesty's dockyards at Esquimalt?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is he a veteran of the armed forces with overseas service?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Capt. (E) A. C. M. Davy, O.B.E., R.C.N.
2.	1st January, 1947.
3.	Captain (E) Davy joined the permanent force as a cadet on the 3rd August, 1917, and has served continuously in the R.C.N. since that date. He served as Director of Shipbuilding and Director of Naval Engineering and Development at N.S.H.Q., Ottawa, during the war and could not be spared for sea service for which he applied.



CANADA MEDAL

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What consideration has been given by the government to the award of the Canada medal?
2.	What conclusions have been reached?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	The government has on several occasions given this matter careful consideration.
2.	It is not felt desirable to make any recommendations at present for the award of the medal.



WAR ASSETS-OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How many (a) typewriters; (b) adding machines; (c) calculating machines; (d) mimeograph or duplicating machines have been disposed of since January 1, 1945, through War Assets Corporation?
2.	How many of each such type of machine have been sold back to their original manufacturers ?
3.	What was the total original cost of all such machines?
4.	What amount has been realized on the sale of such machines?


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Since January 1, 1946, what is the total number and cost of all new office equipment purchased by the government, classified in accordance with the type of equipment, for example: desks, chairs, filing cabinets, tables, etc.?
2.	Since January 1. 1946, what is the total number and value of all office equipment, classified as above, disposed of by the government through War Assets Corporation or other means?


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	To what firms, or individuals, did the War Assets Corporation sell office equipment?
2.	What quantity was sold to each individual, or firm?
3.	What price was paid by each individual, or firm for same?
4.	What was the original price of this office equipment?
Questions


Clarence Decatur Howe: These three questions refer to the disposition of small items or office equipment that have been handled by War Assets Corporation. There is no objection to giving this information if we have it, but there are two practical difficulties. One is that it is impossible to prepare an answer accurately, the second is the very great cost of preparation. The following difficulties have been presented to me by War Assets Corporation:
(a)	War Assets Corporation does not maintain a record of original costs.
(b)	As a result of the introduction of the decentralization of sales policy, all records of sales to individual firms are maintained in the region and branch sales offices.
(e) Prior to November, 1945, declarations of surplus covering miscellaneous items of equipment sometimes including office furniture were received by the corporation. These would have to be checked to separate office furniture from other equipment.
(d)	When the information referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) had been found, it would then be necessary to check against the invoices to ascertain the purchaser.
(e)	The only alternative would be to extract the required information from copies of invoices available in the market research and statistics division at head office which would involve a listing of information from some 4,000 or 5,000 invoices, many of which would not be broken down to show individual prices for individual types of equipment and many others of which show only office furniture and equipment with no description.
, (f) Custodian sales and sales of plants including land, buildings and equipment invariably include items of office furniture and equipment, a record of which is not kept under the office equipment classification.
. (g) To compile the information required, not including a list of equipment sold on a custodian sales basis, would cost at least $4,000 to $5,000, and would take twenty full time employees at least a month to prepare it. The finished report would probably run to a list of around a hundred pages.
It would be possible, however, to give the bulk return received on sales for any given period for "office furniture and equipment", not including furniture and equipment forming part of sales of complete plants. This return would include desks, chairs, tables, business machines and all types of office equipment such as cellulose tape, binders, etc. This return could be further broken down showing total sales to distribution centres, that is, the province to which the equipment was shipped and the total sales made to the dominion government.
I trust that under the circumstances hon. members will decide for themselves whether the three questions are worth $5,000 to the recipients. I suggest that in the meantime, if hon. members are not willing to allow them to drop, the questions stand for further consideration.


Mr. BROOKS:: I think the chief objection which the minister has taken is to parts 3 and 4 of this question. There seems to be the opinion throughout the country that typewriters, adding machines and similar office equipment were not disposed of through War Assets Corporation but were turned back to the companies. I know of a good many firms and others who tried to get typewriters and other office equipment, and there is a feeling that these machines should have been put on sale to the public, that the public should have been allowed to purchase them. Can the minister inform us on that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have said many times in
this house that War Assets Corporation is not a retail organization. It is customary for small articles such as typewriters to be returned to the manufacturer for distribution by him to his usual outlets, in the usual proportions with which these outlets deal with the public. That is true of motor cars and a great variety of other things, and my hon. friend is correct when he says that it is being done with typewriters also, to a large extent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like the first two
parts of my question to stand. I understand that no great cost would be involved in answering them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is right. Will
the hon. member drop paragraphs 3 and 4 of the question standing in his name?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then paragraphs 1 and 2
will stand and 3 and 4 are dropped. The other two questions, by the hon. member for Peterborough West, will stand.



EXPENDITURES ON RIPPLE ROCK, B.C.

Mr. REID:: 1.	What has been the total expenditures to date on the work at Ripple rock?
2.	Has any inspection been undertaken to find out how much of the rock has been removed?
3.	If so, what estimate has been made?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	$835,470.90.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



SALES OF WHEAT TO DISTILLERS

Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many bushels of wheat were sold to distillers in Canada by the Canadian wheat board by months from August, 1946 to January, 1947, and what were the monthly average prices for each grade of wheat ?

Questions


James Angus MacKinnon: Sales to Canadian distilleries No. 2 Northern: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946,
7.000	bushels; Oet. 1946, 15,000 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, 6,000 bushels; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 122.
No. 3 Northern: Aug. 1946, 9,000 bushels; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, 96,727-50 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 120.
No. 4 Northern: Aug. 1946, 56,000 bushels; Sept. 1946, 45,308-30 bushels; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 115.
No. 5: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, 11,333-20 bushels; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec.
1946,	nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 109.
Tough No. 3 Northern: Aug. 1946, 40,000 bushels; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, 14,019-20 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan.
1947,	nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 117.
Tough No. 5: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, 69,692 bushels; Dec. 1946, 12,000 bushels; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 109.
Smutty No. 2 Northern: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, 492-40 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 112.
Smutty No. 3 Northern: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, 1,496-40 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 110.
Rejected No. 2 Nor.xheated: Aug. 1946,nil; Sept. 1946, 1,362-30 bushels; Oct, 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 110.
Damp No. 3 Northern: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, 1,972 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 107.
Tough No. 3 Garnet: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, 2,333-20 bushels; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 113.
Tough No. 3A. Durum: Aug. 1946, 25,000 bushels; Sept. 1946, 158,859-20 bushels; Oct.
1946,	nil; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan.
1947,	nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 117.
Tough No. 3A. Durum: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, 5,000 bushels; Oct. 1946, 2.500 bushels; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 127.
Tough No. 3 Northern: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, nil; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, 3,100 bushels. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 218.
Damp No. 5: Aug. 1946, nil; Sept. 1946, nil; Oct. 1946, nil; Nov. 1946, 2,974-40 bushels; Dec. 1946, nil; Jan. 1947, nil. Price basis, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver, 103.
Bushels: Aug. 1946, 130,000; Sept. 1946, 228,863-40; Oct. 1946, 132,208-30; Nov. 1946, 75.000; Dec. 1946, 18,000; Jan. 1947, 3,100. Total, 587,172-10.
Average price basis in store, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver: Aug. 1946, 116-346; Sept. 1946, 116-538; Oct. 1946, 119-704; Nov. 1946, 108-886; Dec. 1946, 113-333; Jan. 1947, 218. 116-668 average price basis in store, Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver.



OATS-EXPORTS AND PRICES

John Bracken: What was the average price per bushel received by Canadian exporters for oats in the month of October, 1946, when exported to the following countries: (a) United Kingdom; (b) Bermuda; (c) British India; (d) British Guiana; (e) Jamaica; (f) Trinidad; (g) British West Indies other; (h) Newfoundland; (i) Belgium; (j) Germany; (k) Greece; (1) Netherlands; (m) Switzerland; (n) United States?
Mr. MacKINNON; No information available on the average price per bushel received by Canadian exporters for oats in the month of October, 1946. An equalization fee is fixed by the Canadian wheat board and at the same time a permit for the export of the oats is granted, but no information as to the average sale price is available as the transactions are handled through the regular exporting companies.



SPY SUSPECTS

Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	Is it a fact that the government has the names of other suspected spies?
2.	Is it a fact that a private agency has been employed to screen government employees for loyalty?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would ask the hon. member to drop the first part of the question. To answer it would likely be prejudicial to the
Questions

investigational work incidental to the administration of justice and therefore not in the public interest.
To the second part of the question the answer is no.



PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES

[Stage Direction]
act, 1947 Mr. KNOWLES:
1.	How many copies of the draft of the proposed Industrial Relations and Disputes Act, 1947, were printed or mimeographed?
2.	Has there been more than one draft thereof?
3.	To whom were the copies of each draft sent?
Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	650 copies English, 250 copies French have been printed of the draft bill prepared by Department of Labour officials for confidential consideration and comment of provinces and employer and labour groups.
2.	No.
3.	Copies have been sent out under confidential cover to provincial authorities, employers and unions, and their representatives.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON FEED GRAINS

Mr. REID:: 1.	What has been the total amounts expended for freight assistance on all feed grains used in the province of British Columbia for the calendar years 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946?
2.	For what quantities of wheat, oats or barley was this assistance granted during the above named years?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1 and 2.
1943	: 3,074,037 bushels of wheat; 2,432,773 bushels of oats; 1,162,602 bushels of barley; 148,114 bushels of corn; 1,799 tons of screenings; 55,720 tons of millfeeds. Total amount paid: 81,428,211.03.
1944	: 3,807,057 bushels of wheat; 3,085,718 bushels of oats; 1,287,123 bushels of barley; 153,275 bushels of corn; 1,916 tons of screenings; 64,186 tons of millfeeds. Total amount paid: $1,714,965.59.
1945: 3,775,873 bushels of wheat; 3,615,903 bushels of oats; 1,183,144 bushels of barley; 167,182 bushels of corn; 2,166 tons of screenings; 63,470 tons of millfeeds. Total amount paid: $1,750,192.29.
1946: 4,021,842 bushels of wheat; 3,792,553 bushels of oats; 1,228,569 bushels of barley; 185,187 bushels of corn; 2,582 tons of screenings; 68,192 tons of millfeeds. Total amount paid: $1,859,725.32.
[Mr. Ilsley.l



CHINESE IN CANADA

Mr. REID:: 1.	What is the total number of Chinese in Canada, men, women and children?
2.	What numbers are located in each of the nine provinces?


James Angus MacKinnon: Men, women and children of Chinese racial origin, provinces and territories, Census 1941
		Men	Women
Province		20 years	20 years
		of age	of age
	and over		and over
Canada 			28,317	1,712
Prince Edward Island		32		
Nova Scotia 	276	8New Brunswick 	112	5Quebec 	1,980	84Ontario 	5,099	291Manitoba 	1,056	27Saskatchewan 	2,249	57Alberta 	2,619	129British Columbia 	14,891	1,111Yukon 	Northwest Territories	[DOT] [DOT]	3	-Children	Province	Under 20	yearsTotal	15-19	Under 15Canada 	4,598	1,341	3,257Prince Edward Island	13	4	9Nova Scotia 	88	18	70New Brunswick 	35	5	30Quebec 	314	86	228Ontario 	753	199	554Manitoba 	165	42	123Saskatchewan 	239	69	170Alberta 	374	109	265British Columbia .. .2,617	809	1,808Yukon 	-	Northwest Territories	-	-



INCOME TAX-REBATES

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many income taxpayers (a) individual; (b) corporation, were paid rebates during 1946?
2.	What was the total amount of such rebates?
3.	How many income taxpayers (a) individual; (b) corporation, were there in the years 1944 and 1945?
4.	Of these, how many paid more than the tax they actually owed?
5.	What was the total amount of such overpayment?
6.	Of these taxpayers, who- overpaid their taxes in 1944 and 1945, how many had been reimbursed as of December 31, 1946?
7.	What are the reasons for delay in rebating taxes overpaid?

Questions


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	(a) 1,312,112; (b) 1,033.
2.	(a) $49,538,800; (b) $8,770,100.
3.	(a) 3,007,133 individual returns for 1944;
2,908,745 individual returns for 1945.	(b)
31,781 corporation returns for 1944; 32,690 corporation returns for 1945.
4.	Information not available.
5.	Information not available.
6.	Information not available.
7.	If any delay is occasioned it is caused by the necessity of investigating and checking the return of each taxpayer with all the relative data including the report of the employer and in the case of those in business with the financial accounts of such business.



PERSONAL INCOME TAXES

Mr. HEON:: What sums have been received by the federal treasury from personal income taxes; (a) for each year from 1942 to 1946, inclusive; (b) from each province, for each year during the same period?


Mr. McCANN:: Tax Collections by Provinces
1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 Fiscal Years
Individual Income Tax Collections
P.E. Island	$	483,893
Nova Scotia	 8,884,184
New Brunswick	 5,834,096
Quebec	 79,187,566
Ontario	 146,906,862
Manitoba	 13,002,356
Saskatchewan	 4,425,455
Alberta	 9,886,505
British Columbia	 26,979,023
Yukon	 281,792
Head Office	 2,553
Canada	 295,874,285
P.E. Island	$	591,347
Nova Scotia	 16,310,837
New Brunswick	 8,816,323
Quebec	 149,319,074
Ontario	 261,167,282
Manitoba	 22,061,338
Saskatchewan	 8,177,793
Alberta	 16.357,848
British Columbia	 50,646,780
Yukon	 466,421
Head Office	 16
Canada	 533,915,059
P.E. Island	$ 1,157,775
Nova Scotia	 26,797,390
New Brunswick	 13,366,548
Quebec	 210,354,179
Ontario	 380,379,713
Manitoba	 34,840,084
Saskatchewan	 14,525,921
Alberta	 32,143,747
British Columbia	 95,109,123
Yukon	 891,392
Head Office	 4,890
Canada	 809,570,762
P.E. Island	$ 1,353,927
Nova Scotia	 25,541,461
New Brunswick	 13,947,842
Quebec	 190,834,732
Ontario	 364,791.086
Manitoba	 36,867,765
Saskatchewan	 17,703,639
Alberta	 32,018,333
British Columbia	 80,002,011
Yukon	 809,903
Head Office	 25,623
Canada	 763,896,322
P.E. Island	$ 1,286,163
Nova Scotia	 21,522,541
New Brunswick	 13,381,600
Quebec	 174.224,778
Ontario	 316,744,114
Manitoba	 36,599,998
Saskatchewan	 22,487,369
Alberta	 31,861,739
British Columbia	 70.787,546
Yukon	 581,050
Head Office	 29,865
Canada	 689,506,763



WINTER CONDITIONS IN BRITAIN-QUESTION OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action is the government taking to alleviate the heavy winter suffering of the people of Great Britain?
2.	Has any emergency aid been sent there to help people suffering from lack of fuel, food and other necessaries of life?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	The government has not received any request from the government of the United Kingdom for special assistance of the character referred to. Meanwhile, the government is exerting every effort under arrangements previously made to move food and other essential supplies to Great Britain.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND BROADCASTING STUDIOS, MONTREAL

Mr. HEON:: 1.	What steps have been taken to erect a building to house the administrative offices and broadcasting studios of the C.B.C. in Montreal?
2.	Where will this building be erected?
3.	Have any plans been made for the proposed buildings and grounds?
4.	If so (a) who are the architects and engineers: (b) for what location were these plans specifically drawn up; (c) how much has been spent on the project to date; (d) what is the estimated cost of the project?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Various projects have been studied, but none has been adopted and the C.B.C. has no definite plans as yet.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



CORPORATION TAXES

Georges-Henri Héon: What sums have been received by the federal treasury from corporation taxes:	(a) for
each year from 1942 to 1946, inclusive; (b) from each province, for each year during the same period?


James Joseph McCann: Tax Collections By Provinces 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 Fiscal Years Corporation Income Tax Collections
P.E. Island ... Nova Scotia . New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba .... Saskatchewan .
Alberta	
Br. Columbia ..
Yukon	
Head Office ...
$	263,733
2,655,727 2,308,780 69,046,153 90.846,409 5,379,018 640,489 2,934,560 11,729,942 30,834 54
Canada
P.E. Island .... Nova Scotia .. New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ..
Alberta	
Br. Columbia ..
Yukon	
Head Office ...

$	815,994
5,263,936 3,271,427 131.067,863 167,189,766 9,835,211 1,161,615 6,127,392 23,185,431 51,082 6
Canada	$347,969,723

P.E. Island .... Nova Scotia .. New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan .
Alberta	
Br. Columbia ..
Yukon	
Head Office ...
$	549,933
3,944,078 3,930,395 127,786,553 138,565,206 10,159,911 1,325,798 6,651,768 18,149,497 304,438 11,137
Canada	
P.E. Island .. Nova Scotia .. New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ..
Alberta	
Br. Columbia ..
Yukon	
Head Office ...
,$311,378,714
$	630,623
3,810,146 3,806,036 107,639,412 124,137,103 11,261,897 1,792,769 7,252,753 15,933,254 93,929 45,927
Canada	
P.E. Island ... Nova Scotia .. New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan .
Alberta	
Br. Columbia .,
Yukon	
Head Office ...

$	714,670
4,504,076 3,151,310 72,989,429 99,021,902 11,235,517 1,563,345 5,469,692 19,158,666 *18,437 43,370
Canada	$217,833,540
*Debit amount.
14th February, 1947.



IMMIGRATION

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to a news despatch from Quebec City, January 11, that between 50,000 to 60,000 immigrants are due in Canada via the port of Quebec, during next summer?
2.	If so, is the information contained in it correct, and from what countries are they coming ?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. It is not possible, at this time, to
estimate the number of immigrants that will arrive at the port of Quebec this summer, or the countries from which they will come.

Questions



CONTROLLER OP TEXTILES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was there a controller of textiles during 1946?
2.	If so (a) who was he; (b) did he have anything to do with Courtaulds (Canada) Ltd., and if so, in what capacity?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Mr. F. B. Walls was coordinator of textile administrations of the wartime prices and trade board during 1946. He has no connection with Courtaulds (Canada) Ltd.
P E. Island	 46,133
Nova Scotia	 437,017
New Brunswick	 315,054
Quebec	 4,410,013
Ontario	 9,413,142
Manitoba	 349,936
Saskatchewan	 226,632
Alberta	 594,371
Br. Columbia	 1,456,385
Yukon	 2,114



SUCCESSION DUTIES

Georges-Henri Héon: What sums have been received by the federal treasury from succession duties: (a) for each year from .1942 to 1946, inclusive; (b) from each province, for each year during the same period?
Mr. McCANN;
Tax Collections By Provinces
1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 Fiscal Years
P.E. Island	 $	2,138
Nova Scotia	 79,129
New Brunswick	 67,557
Quebec	 3,371,435
Ontario	 3,003,417
Manitoba	 106,113
Saskatchewan	 21,434
Alberta	 102,282
Br. Columbia	 202,884
Yukon	 185
Canada	 $6,956,574
P.E. Island	 15,727
Nova Scotia	 249,199
New Brunswick	 142,227
Quebec	 5,193,092
Ontario	 6,243,663
Manitoba	 354,307
Saskatchewan	 144,201
Alberta	 304,337
Br. Columbia	 624,912
Yukon	 1,818
Canada	$13,273,483
P.E. Island	 40,843
Nova Scotia	 399,371
New Brunswick	 323,156
Quebec	 4,288315
Ontario	 8,016,707
Manitoba	  231,991
Saskatchewan	 203,046
Alberta	 361,129
Br. Columbia	 1,154,933
Yukon	 160*
Canada	$15,019,831
Debit amount.
Canada	
P.E. Island ... Nova Scotia .. New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba .... Saskatchewan .
Alberta	
Br. Columbia .. Yukon	
Canada



$17,250,797 26,085 555,258 691,630 4,568,285 12,483,331 450,440 264,325 609,274 1,794,485 4,460 $21,447,573 OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT-PETITION OP FRED ROSE

Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	To whom was the petition of Fred Rose, re his alleged espionage activities, addressed?
2.	When was it received?
3.	Was his petition seen by the government?
4.	Are copies available to members of parliament?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The government has no knowledge of any petition by Fred Rose re his alleged espionage activities. There was, however, a letter on this subject addressed by him to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
2.	This letter was received by the Department of Justice at Ottawa on January 29, 1947.
3.	The letter was not seen by any member of the government other than the Minister of Justice, who forwarded it to the Speaker on January 29, 1947.
4.	No. Neither the letter nor any copy thereof is in the possession of the government.



IGOR GOUZENKO

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Was the statement by Igor Gouzenko dated 10th October, 1945 (page 638 of the espionage report) made as a result of a request from an employee of the Canadian government or from a member of the R.C.il.P.?
2.	By whom and when was Gouzenko interviewed on behalf of the government of Canada?
3.	Is Gouzenko in the protective custody of the R.C.M.P.?

Questions

4.	Is he being supported by the dominion government and are the amounts disbursed for his support regarded as loans or as gifts?	.
5.	Did the Department of Justice receive
opinions from counsel advising against the prosecution of any of the espionage suspects. It so, in what cases?	,
6.	If such opinions were received, on what basis were they disregarded?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	By officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Sept. 7, 1945.
3.	He is not in custody, but has the protection of the R.C.M. Police.
4.	He is not being supported by the dominion government.
5.	No.
6.	Anstvered in preceding answer.



BUILDING PERMITS

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What is the aggregate value of building permits issued in Canada, by months and by the year, in (a) the year 1945; (b) the year 4946?
2.	How much of such aggregate in each of the said months and years was for residential construction?
3.	For how many (a) new housing units, and (b) reconversions of housing units, were permits issued in each of these months and years?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	1945	1946January ..	....$ 5.394.227	$ 15,287.048February .	.... 7,224.439	16.572,116March ....	.... 12.782,715	39,758.925April 	.... 17,847,235	56,733,095May	.... 17.860.383	47,858,839June 	.... 19.567,802	32,249,213July 	.... 19,942,269	34,542.617August ...	.... 23.281.549	29,496,441September	.... 20,038,759	29,049,710October ..	.... 19,643.473	33,633,091November	.... 18,283,671	24,237,320December	.... 15,320,638	24,078,583Total ..	197.187,160	383,496,9982. J anuary ..	....$ 2.400,692	$ 8.207,537F ebruary .	.... 3.449.565	8,058,996March	.... 7,326,522	20,635,249April ....	.... 10,893.368	31,286.048May	.... 13.936,682	25,542,538June 	.... 13,157.758	19,737,498July 	.... 13,044.902	16,261,401August ..	.... 11.529.218	17,780.770September	.... 13.037.998	15,475,182October ..	.... 12.646.947	16.550,431November	.... 9.993,002	12.824,380December	.... 6,472,177	8,311217Total ..	.... 117,888.831	200,671.247

3 (a). New Housing Units-
	1945	1946
January 	
578	1,769February 	
834	1,723March 	
1.490	4,296April 	
2.412	7,180May 	
2,945	5,508June 	
2,816	4,050July 	
2,823	3,428August 	
2,437	3.637September 	
2,853	3,046October 	
2,796	3,293November 	
2,209	2,470December 	
1,434	1,097Total	
25,627	41,497
3 (b). Reconversions-
	1945	1946
January 	
228	254February 	
265	241March 	
252	419April 	
227	510May 	
323	465June 	
220	308July 	
207	253August 	
311	294September 	
222	273October 	
222	378November 	
286	308December 	
179	97Total 	2.942	3,800
Note: All 1946 figures subject to slight amendment.
Reports of permits issued received from 204 selected municipalities representing approximately 47 per cent of total population (1941 Census).



UNITED STATES DOLLARS HELD IN CANADA

Mr. CASE:: What was the total amount of American dollars held by Canada as of (a) December 31, 1945; (b) December 31, 1946?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: (a)	Foreign exchange and short-term securities of the government of the United States held in the exchange fund account-$922,075,635.75 (United States). In addition, the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada had balances in banks in New York totalling $237,506,895.88 (United States).
(b)	This information will be presented to parliament in May.
Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that a report of the operations of the exchange fund account for each calendar year shall be made to the Minister of Finance within five months of the termination of such

Questions
year and this report shall be presented to parliament witihin fourteen days of receipt thereof.



HIS MAJESTY'S ABSENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA- COUNCIL OF STATE

Mr. COYLE:: ,1. Does the council of state appointed to exercise regal functions during His Majesty's absence from the United Kingdom in South Africa, have any authority in respect of Canada?
2.	If so, what is the nature of that authority?
3.	Was the Canadian government consulted regarding the appointment of this council of state?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The answer is no, but perhaps I should add this word of explanation.
On January 17 the governor general informed the Prime Minister, through his secretary, of the arrangements which had been made in the United Kingdom for a council of state. He said that during the King's absence, the Duke of Gloucester, the Princess Royal, and Lord Lascelles, would be appointed counsellors of state, with powers, restricted by the terms of the letters patent to certain subjects, to act for His Majesty within the United Kingdom. He added that, throughout his tour, the king would continue to transact as usual any business submitted to him by his ministers in Canada.
The action which has been taken in the appointment of the present council of state is provided for by the Regency Act, 1937, which enables counsellors of state to be appointed to carry out necessary royal functions in the United Kingdom during the king's absence. The act has no application to Canada, and the counsellors of state have no jurisdiction in respect of Canada.


Mr. CHURCH:: Canada is a separate
country.



TAX ON ELECTRIC LIGHTING

Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	'Is the tax on electric lighting based on the cost of the product used rather than on the quantity of the product used? If so, for what reason?
2.	Has the government considered (a) making the tax equitable over areas of low and high cost production; (b) abolishing the tax in toto?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	The tax on electric lighting is the regular sales tax of 8 per cent and applies to the sales of this commodity when used in dwellings. The reason is that the regular sales tax in effect in Canada is applied to the sale price of commodities and not to the quantities or units sold. In other words, it is an ad valorem rather than a specific tax.
2.	This department has no information.
83166-31i



UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY-REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN

Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the government consider giving appropriate representation to the women of Canada on the next delegation sent by this country to the general assembly of the united nations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Delegations sent by Canada to meetings of the general assembly of the united nations represent the government of Canada and not any particular group of persons nor any organization in Canada.



EXPORTS OF CHEMICALLY-PURE GLYCERINE

Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	How many pounds of C.P. glycerine were exported from Canada to the United States, and at what price per pound, in 1939, 1943, 1945 and 1946?
2.	Are export permits for this product in 1947 to date in excess of the same period in 1946?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	C.P. glycerine not separately classified in trade statistics. Exports of glycerine, crude or refined to the united States were as follows:
Price per lb.
Year	Lb. Value	cts.1939	
99,300	$ 7,563	7-61943	
1,977,500	240,086	12-11945	
1,634,400	187,787	11-51946	
675,600	133,340	19-72.	No. No permits issued in 1947.



MARRIED COUPLES WITH ONE CHILD OR NONE

Mr. McCUAIG:: 4.	What is the number of married couples ih Canada with no children?
2. What is the number of married couples in Canada with only one child?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Number of married couples with no children, 683,218*.
2.	Number of married couples with one child, 497,010*.
(*1941 census figures.)



*LOANS TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Mr. MENARY:: 1.	Did the government extend lend lease aid to the following countries: England, France, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Greece?
2.	If so, what amount to each country?


George James McIlraith: I should like to give an oral answer to this question. No lend lease was extended by Canada to any of the countries mentioned, but mutual aid was extended to three of them, namely, the United Kingdom, France and Greece. The report covering mutual aid was tabled by the
Questions

Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) on January 31, 1947, sessional paper No. 141, and full information with respect to it will be found in that sessional paper.



POLISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr. BLACK:: (Cumberland):
4.	How many Poles were permitted t: anter Canada in 1946?	_
2.	How many were settled in each province?
3.	What was the total transportation ccst and by whom was it paid?
4.	What sum is payable each month to each person by (a) the farmer or employer; (b) the Canadian government; (c) other parties?
5.	What additional amount is allowed each month for board and lodging and by whcm is it payable?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	2,876.
2.	Prince Edward Island, 20; Nova Scotia, 117; New Brunswick, 64; Quebec, 236; Ontario, 1,307; Manitoba, 339; Saskatchewan, 240; Alberta, 453; British Columbia, 100.
Note: These figures include some veterans who are receiving medical treatment.
3.	Transportation from Halifax to central distribution centres in each province- approximately $125,000, paid by the federal department of labour.
Transportation from distribution centres to individual farms-approximately $20,000, paid on a fifty-fifty basis by provincial department of agriculture and federal department of labour.
Note: Transportation from Italy to Halifax was paid for entirely by British government.
4.	(a) At least $45 per month plus board, depending upon veteran's skill and nature of work performed; (b) none; (c) $25 per month as war gratuities from the British government until the full amount of these gratuities is paid.
5.	See answer 4(a) above.



EXPENDITURE OF CANADIANS ON SPIRITS, BEER AND WINE

Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What was the estimated amount spent by Canadians during the last year for which statistics are available on: spirits, beer and wine?
2.	How much was spent in each province?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2.
Sales of Alcoholic Beverages in Provinces and Territories of Canada in their Fiscal Years ending in 1945, as Reported by the Provincial Liquor Boards or Commissions.
Spirits	Wine	Beer	Total$	$	$	$Nova Scotia	.... 8,893,112	634,306	9.605,576	19,132,994New Brunswick	.... 5,724,426	751,321	4,445,203	10,920,950Quebec 	.... 39,849,811	4,957,520	32,135,402	76,942,733Ontario 	.... 33,077,408	6,305,608	63,502.831	102,885,847Manitoba 	.... 5,209,650	813,158	9,275,741	15.298,549Saskatchewan	.... 5,799,646	1	7,824,033	13.623,679Alberta 	.... 7,403,832	1	13,160,225	20,564,057British Columbia	.... 13,583.171	824,185	14,951,024	29,358,380Yukon 	.... 393.317	15,413	215,203	623,933Northwest Territories	.... 136,799	1	80,466	217,265Total 	.... 120,071,172	14,301,511	155,195,704	289,568,387
1 Included with spirits.
Note:-Prince Edward Island is under prohibition, hence, liquor is not sold to the general public but for medicinal purposes only. In the Public Accounts of this province for 1944-45 gross sales of liquor are shown as $713,072.76.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many copies of the report of the_ royal
commission on espionage have been (a) printed; (b) distributed?	_	.2.	How many copies of this report were distributed to other countries?	_3.	What was the total cost of printing and distributing this report?


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-PURCHASES FROM PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Since January 1, 1944, has the National Film Board made any purchases from persons engaged in the public service?
2.	If so, what was the amount of each such purchase ?
3.	From whom was each such purchase made?
4.	LTpon whose authority was each such purchase made?

Orders for Returns



NATIONAL FILM BOARD

[Stage Direction]
5.	Did the Auditor General make any protest against such purchases?
6.	If so, what was the result of his protest?
James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



HOUSING


Mr. PROBE:: 1.	How much lumber of various kinds or grades was bought by or for any federal housing agency during each of the months of 1946. in each of the federal constituencies of Pontiac and Nipissing?
2.	At what prices and from what distributors were these various contracts of lumber purchased?
3.	What portion of these purchases were at (a) retail price or less; (b) wholesale ceiling prices or less; (c) above ceiling prices?



CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES UNDER VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many homes were constructed by the government under the Veterans' Land Act in each of the various provinces?
2.	How many designs or floor plans were used?
_ 3. What was the average cost in each province for each design or floor plan?
4.	How many are now in course of construction and when was building on same commenced?
5.	How many have been purchased by veterans?
6.	Have veterans made deposits on proposed purchases and later declined to proceed with the purchase of such holdings, if so, by whom, and why were said deals not completed?
7.	Is the purchase price of any unit in excess of the cost to the government? If so, how much and what units were effected?
8.	Has the government been requested for new price contracts? If so, how many such requests from each province?



PURCHASE OF DOUBLE TIER STEEL BEDS

Mr. FRASER:: From what companies did the Canadian government buy double tier steel beds during 194045, and in what quantities?



CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES UNDER VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Have veterans in any part of Canada obtained contracts for purchase of homes under V.L.A. at a lesser price than the price originally asked?
2.	If so, where; how many veterans were concerned and what was the reduction in each individual case?



GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. MURPHY:: 1 How many automobiles does the government operate in each of the various provinces?
2. How many were purchased in 1946 in each of the various provinces?


Mr. WEBB:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the National Film Board?
2.	What is the normal occupation of each such member?
3.	What is the total of the allowances and/or other remuneration paid to each member of the board during each of the last two fiscal years ?
4.	What are the names, duties and salaries of all officials or employees of the board or of the Government Film Commissioner who receive a salary in excess of $1,200 per annum.
5.	How was each such person appointed to his present position?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	Since January 1, 1946, has the national film board (a) distributed; (b) purchased, films made in the United States?
2.	If so, from what firms in the United States were such films secured, indicating the title of each film purchased from each firm?
3.	What was the total amount paid to each United States firm during 1946?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES UNDER VETERANS LAND ACT-ARCHITECTS

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What architects were commissioned in each year to prepare designs for houses under the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	On what basis were the architects selected?
3.	What fees were paid to each, by years?
4.	On what basis were such fees calculated?
5.	Who has owned the designs since they were submitted?



CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES UNDER VETERANS LAND A.CT-BOUCHERVILLE, QUE.

Mr. FLEMING:: *1. Were tenders invited by the director of the Veterans' Land Act for the construction of houses at Boucherville?
2.	Who was the director of the Veterans' Land Act at that time?
3.	Who is the director today, and what are his qualifications and salary?
4.	If tenders were invited, when were they invited, and for how many houses, and on what terms?
5.	What tenders were' received and who submitted them?
6.	Which of these tenders were rejected?
7.	Was a contract entered into, and if so, with whom as contractor, and for the erection of how many houses, and on what terms as to price and payment?
8.	If such contractor was a corporation, who were its directors and officers at that time? If it was a partnership at the time, what are the names of the partners?
9.	Were any tenders invited for the construction of the number of houses and on the terms set out in the answer to question 7?
10.	What payments have been made pursuant to the said contract, and on what dates?
Orders for Returns

11.	What record of progress had been made and submitted at the date of each such payment, and by what government inspector or inspectors was the same made or provided in each case? Are all such inspectors still in the employ of the government?
12.	What further claims or requisitions for payment have been made by the contractor, and for -what amounts, and on what dates, and on what basis?
13.	What is the government's intention with reference to such claims?
14.	Are any further claims expected, and if so, for what and in what amount?
15.	What investigation of this contraot and the circumstances surrounding it has been made, and by whom, and at what expense to the government to date?
16.	What further investigation is intended, and by whom is it intended that it shall be made, and when is it expected to be completed and at what estimated expense?



GRADE SEPARATION AND LEVEL CROSSINGS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums of money have been spent during the war and since on grade separation and level crossings, listed according to provinces?
2.	What amount was spent on the same work in the past two years in the city of Toronto?
3.	Has the government any programme for 1947 herein? If so, for what works and where?
4.	What further protection is to be given to remove the dangerous level crossing at Jones avenue, Toronto, and has any further action been taken on this since last session?


Lionel Chevrier: Return tabled.



REPATRIATION OF CANADIANS FROM JAPAN

George Black: Is the expense, including cost of transportation, of repatriating Canadians from Japanese prison and concentration camps borne by Canada?



CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES

Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Has the government entered into any agreement with a society known as the corps of commissionaires for the provision of guards on government buildings?
2.	If so, upon what conditions is the corps of commissionaires providing the guards and upon what basis does the federal government concerned pay the society for the labour given?
3.	What wages or salaries are paid by the society to the men of the corps to perform the actual guard duties?
4.	Is each corps man expected to pay an entry fee or deposit and to purchase a uniform?
5.	Are wage deductions made by the society, if so, how much?
6.	Are members of the corps covered by dominion unemployment insurance?



N.B. FISHERY INSPECTORS

Douglas King Hazen: ,1. How many war veterans living in the city of Saint John and in the county of Saint John, N.B.. applied to be appointed fishery inspectors in .1946?

2.	How many of those who applied were notified to attend the examination that was held last December?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the applicants who were appointed inspectors?
4.	How much are they paid?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



CIVIL SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1946

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many civil servants have been appointed since Jan. 1, 1946?
2.	Of this number how many were appointed by or through the civil service commission?



ERECTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Since September 1, 1939, how many buildings have been erected by the dominion government in the city of Ottawa or immediately adjacent municipalities?
2.	Where is each such building located?
3.	What was the total cost of each such building?
4.	What is the purpose for which each such building is used?



NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Since January I, 1946, how many new passenger type motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of National Defence?
2.	What is the total cost of such purchases?
3.	For what use is each such motor vehicle intended?
4.	Why were not motor vehicles available for these purposes from surplus stocks?



PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	During the year 1946. how many new motor vehicles were purchased by the dominion government, or any of its agencies or crown corporations, indicating the purpose for which such vehicles were required?
2.	What was the total cost of such purchases?



FORT ST. JOHN, B.C., INDIAN RESERVATION

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Has the Indian reservation near Fort St. John, B.C., been opened for soldier settlers?
2.	If so, how many returned men have actually purchased land and established homes in this area?
3.	How many returned men have made application for holdings on said reserve?
4.	What price has been put on this land by the department?



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What is the total number of persons unemployed, by provinces or regions, at the latest available date?
2.	How many persons are drawing unemployment insurance benefits, by provinces or regions?

Orders for Returns
3.	How many are drawing D.V.A. benefits, and/or V.L.A. benefits, by provinces or regions?
4.	How many are taking courses in schools,
universities, vocational schools, training on the job, etc.?	.
5.	Are those listed in answers to questions 2, 3 and 4 included in the answer to question 1?



ESQUIMALT DOCKYARD

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons are employed at the
civil and naval dockyards at Esquimalt, British Columbia?	_	. .	.
2.	How many are paid on civil service salary rates and how many on prevailing rates?
3.	Have the prevailing rates employees at the
dockyards in Esquimalt been granted (a) the fifteen-cent general wage increase granted to west coast shipyards effective August '1, 1946; (b) the forty-hour week granted to shipyard workers on the same date?	.
4.	If not, is the matter under consideration?



HOUSING


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the total cost of each home constructed under the Veterans' Land Act in (a) Sarnia township, Lambton county; (b) Homeland and Oliver farm areas, Essex county?
2.	Who was the contractor or contractors m each of the above areas?
3.	How many homes were built under the
V.L.A, in (a) Sarnia township; (b) Roseland and Oliver farm areas?	.
4.	What is the present proposed sale price of each home in the same areas?
5.	What was the original price asked in each
case?	.
6.	What was the cost per unit of project overhead and how was the same made up?
7.	Have any veterans made deposits on proposed purchases and later declined to proceed with the purchase of such holdings? If so, by whom and why were said deals not completed?
8.	Who were the government inspectors in each of the above areas and what was the term of employment and salary of each inspector?
9.	What qualifications did the inspector have to become an inspector under V.L.A.?
10.	Is the purchase price asked any veterans in excess of the cost to the government? If so, how much and what units are affected?
111.	Does the government permit veterans to obtain half-acre plots and build homes on same under VjL.A. in (a) the Sarnia township area; (b) the Roseland and Oliver farm areas?
12.	Has the government received any complaints about construction or price of homes in (a) Sarnia township area; (b) Roseland and Oliver farm areas?
13.	Has the government been requested for new price contracts or rental agreements by veterans in these areas?
14.	On whose advice were the locations for veterans' homes chosen?
15.	Who recommended the sites chosen in (a) Sarnia township area; (b) Roseland and Oliver farm areas?



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT-REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. BENTLEY:: 1. On what date was E. K. Williams of Winnipeg appointed counsel to the commission on espionage?
2.	On what basis was his remuneration calculated?
3.	Will Mr. Williams' report be made public
and when?
4.	Was a member of the staff of the Department of External Affairs present at the sittings of the commission on espionage. If so, who and in what capacity?
5. Did the Department of External Affairs assist in the preparation of any part of the report on espionage? If so, of what part or parts?
6.	On what authority was the report of the commission on espionage published and circulated before the trial of those accused?
7.	How many copies of the report have to date been published (a) in English and (b) in French?
8.	How many copies of the report have been distributed (a) within Canada and (b) outside Canada?
9.	Has consideration been given to withdrawing the report from circulation, in view of the several acquittals?



CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What crown corporations have been established since January 4, 4940?	_
2.	Who are the directors and senior officials of each such corporation?
3.	What salary, fee or other emolument is paid to each such director or official?
4.	What is the purpose or object of each such
corporation?	[DOT]
5.	What is the capitalization of each such corporation?
6.	What factories, plants or other similar physical properties are owned by each such corporation and where are they located?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Bracken: For a copy of all communications dated since January 1, 1946, between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom or the government of New Zealand regarding the importation of New Zealand butter into Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure the leader of the opposition will recognize that these papers could not be produced without the consent of the governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. If he wishes us to do so I shall ask if they have any objection to the papers mentioned in the motion being produced. Is it the desire of the hon. member that I should do that?


John Bracken: Yes, I desire that we have that information, and if that is the proper procedure we shall accept the minister's suggestion.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then I would ask that the motion be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.
Motions for Papers



INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION- SUGGESTED CHARTER

Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of the document considered by the preparatory committee of the international trade and employment conference in October and November, 1946. entitled-"Suggested charter for an international trade organization of the united nations".
Also a copy of the official report of this committee, and a copy of Canada's recommendations to the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This notice was given before the tabling of the documents in question, which was made in the house on February 10. In view of the fact that they have already been tabled I have no doubt the hon. member is prepared to drop the motion.


Victor Quelch: Yes.
Motion dropped,



EXPENDITURES ON ADVERTISING, ETC.

Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a statement showing the total amount spent by each department and agency of the government, including crown corporations, since September 1, 1939, on advertising, pamphlets, leaflets, folders, broadcasts, press releases, posters, billboards, window displays, photographs, cuts, mats, speakers' tours, and all forms of publicity or propaganda,-and including salaries, honoraria, living allowances, travelling or other expenses, paid to persons engaged either permanently or temporarily in such work.



EXPORT AGREEMENT WITH UNITED KINGDOM- FARM PRODUCTS

Mr. DANIEL:: For a copy of each export agreement with the United Kingdom for farm products from 1939 up to January 31, 1947.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-PUBLICITY

Mr. HENDERSON:: For a copy of all pamphlets, brochures, posters, dodgers, press releases, or other publicity matter issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare since its establishment, together with a statement showing the total number of each such document issued and the total cost of printing and distributing each such document.



FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF PUBLIC PROJECTS- SPEECH AT PETERBOROUGH

Robert James Henderson: For a list of the 96 public projects planned by government which were mentioned in the speech at Peterborough on January 23, 1947, by the federal coordinator of public projects, together with a statement showing the total estimated cost of each such project.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is objection to tabling these projects in parliament, They are projected projects only. No appropriation has
[Mr. St. Laurent.1
been made for carrying them out, and there is no certainty when, if ever, an appropriation will be made. I am inclined to think that if cities knew that any project filed with the Department of Reconstruction for future construction is to be announced in the house we would get very few applications filed; therefore I suggest that it is not in the public interest to bring down the list.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The federal coordinator ought to stop talking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so.


John Bracken: This matter was referred to by an official in the employ of the government, It was thought that anything which he would be prepared to speak about in public ought not to be denied to hon. members. That is the reason for the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I just say that, as I understand it, the coordinator of public projects mentioned the number of projects; he did not name the special projects. I should be glad to bring down the number of projects which have been filed from time to time.


Gordon Graydon: I imagine he said either too much or too little.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS-COST-OF-LIVING BONUS

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence between any organizations representing superannuated federal civil servants and any cabinet minister or departmental official, dated since September 1, 1941, with reference to a cost of living bonus or other supplement for retired federal civil servants.



PATENT ACT-REPRESENTATIONS AS TO AMENDMENTS

Clayton Earl Desmond: For a copy of all representations made to the government, since January 1. 1944, on the subject of amendments to the Patent Act or the Unfair Competition Act, by any public body of patent attorneys, inventors, or manufacturers or the representatives of such bodies.



CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE FIRMS

Mr. HATFIELD:: For a statement showing the total amount paid, since September 1. 1939, by the government of Canada or any of its agencies by way of capital assistance to private firms, the statement to show the firms to which assistance granted and the total amount granted to each firm.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to point out that the information asked for in* this motion is included in the information asked for in a motion we shall reach later, in the name of the leader of the opposition. I suggest

Motions jor Papers
that after the papers have been brought down in response to that motion, if the hon. member (Mr. Hatfield) wishes any additional information he could then move for it. I am sorry to have to suggest this in the absence of the mover of this motion, but perhaps it can be dropped with the understanding that if the information he desires is not brought down as I have suggested, this motion can again be put on the order paper.


Mr. BOUCHER:: In the absence of the hon. member who moved the motion I would ask that it be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



INVESTMENTS IN PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

John Bracken: For a statement showing the total investment made in plant and equipment since September 1, 1939, in: (a) crown companies; (b) other government operated plants; (c) government plants privately managed; (d) privately owned plants; the statement to show the name and location of each plant and the amount invested in each, and to show also what plants have been sold or otherwise disposed of, to whom, and at what price.



SUBVENTIONS OR BONUSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR CROWN CORPORATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRACKEN;
For a statement showing the total amount paid, since September 1. 1939, by the government of Canada or any of its agencies or crown corporations by way of subvention, bonus, price aid or subsidy on any, or in respect of any commodity, the statement to show the commodities on which subvention, bonus, price aid or subsidy has been paid and the total amount paid in respect of each commodity during each fiscal year.

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of India and/or Pandit Nehru regarding the disabilities suffered by and status of Indians in Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the hon. member would allow this motion to stand. The consent of the Indian government will have to be obtained, and is being sought, for the production of these papers. Our understanding is that this does not refer to correspondence with Pandit Nehru personally but in his official capacity as a member of the government interested.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is correct.	.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As soon as we get a reply from the Indian government I will let the hon. member know.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is satisfactory.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- TRAVELLERS' BUILDING, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Public Works and the unemployment insurance commission from January 1, 1945, to date, with reference to the condition of the Travellers' building, Winnipeg.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Return tabled.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL SERVICE

George Russell Boucher: For a copy of all orders in council implementing any part of the report of the Gordon royal commission on the civil service.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.


George Russell Boucher: Do I understand there is only one order tabled now?



VETERANS AFFAIRS-OUT-OF-WORK AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, regulations and instructions sent out by the Department of Labour and/or the Department of Veterans Affairs relating to veterans receiving out-of-work benefits and/or unemployment insurance benefits.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- &quot;SUITABLE EMPLOYMENT&quot;

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all regulations and instructions sent out by the Department of Labour and/or the unemployment insurance commission to each province and division and now in effect, with respect to "suitable employment," including in particular any regulations and instructions with respect to married women and elderly people.


Humphrey Mitchell: Return tabled.



HOUSING-LAMBTON AND ESSEX COUNTIES

Joseph Warner Murphy: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, agreements, memoranda and other documents in lieu of contracts entered into by the government or any department or agency of the government between January 1, 1943, and February 12, 1947, concerning veterans' homes and holdings in the township of Sarnia, county of Lamb-ton, and in the Roseland and Oliver farm areas, county of Essex. Also a copy of all time sheets and invoices in connection with the above.

Motions jor Papers



WELLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY

Mr. WRIGHT:: For a copy of all contracts and/or agreements made by the government, or any department, or agency thereof, and the North American Cyana-mid Company (Limited, for construction, operation or disposal of Welland Chemical Company or any other plant or project in Canada from 1939 to date.



ALBERTA NITROGEN PRODUCTS COMPANY

Percy Ellis Wright: For a copy of all contracts and/or agreements made by the government, or any department, or agency thereof, and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company Limited from >1939 to date, in connection with construction, operation or disposal of Alberta Nitrogen Products Company and Projects No. 7 and No. 8 referred to in sessional paper 360, tabled May 28, 1943.



CADET TRAINING

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of an order of the Department of National Defence, effective March 31 next, abolishing or eliminating cadet training for public and secondary schools of those under 14 years and transferring it from school boards to cadet organizations elsewhere, including all reports of officials relating thereto and all other correspondence.



IGOR GOUZENKO

Mr. McCUAIG:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the dominion government and the embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, relative to the departure of Igor Gouzenko from the said embassy.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would ask the hon. member if he would not agree to drop this motion. The papers that could be produced are those that are reproduced in the report of the royal commissioners. There are additional papers which it would not be proper in the public interest to produce because they contain descriptions of Mr. Gouzenko and his wife, and the government feels that it would not be proper to make these physical descriptions public. The hon. member will find in the report of the royal commissioners the text of a certain communication from the embassy, given at pages 645 and 646 of the report, and the substance of the answer is also recited in the report. I think he will find there all that could be made public. All these papers were put before the royal commissioners and they refer to such of them as it might not be improper to make public. The others would involve making public information which it is not in the public interest to have published at this time.


Mr. IRVINE:: Could these people be described any more realistically than they are?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have no objection to allowing the hon. member to see the physical descriptions that are given in the papers, which it is not felt it would be proper to table, and he can judge for himself.
Motion dropped.



NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE CADETS

Mr. PEARKES:: For a copy of all orders and instructions issued by the Department of National Defence since the first of July, 1946, governing, authorizing or restricting the training and the numbers to be trained, by commands, military districts or areas in the various provinces of cadets of the Royal Canadian Naval Cadet Corps, Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps,' and Royal Canadian Air Force Cadet Corps.



WHEAT BOARD


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all correspondence including telegrams from 1st November, 1946, to date that passed between Charles Huntting and the wheat board and/or the Department of Trade and Commerce touching on his resignation as a member of the Canadian wheat hoard and/or having to do with complaints by the said Charles Huntting regarding the management or operation of the Canadian wheat board.


James Angus MacKinnon: I might answer this
orally. I find there is no correspondence either in the files of the Canadian wheat board or in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I was surprised to find that there was nothing in the way of a formal resignation and I propose making inquiries about that.
As far as Mr. Huntting's attitude to the Canadian wheat board is concerned, I have no doubt that if he were making comments they would be in the most flattering terms, because the relations between him and other members of the wheat board are most cordial. We have the very highest regard for Mr. Huntting, who as a member of the Canadian wheat board has performed a great service, I believe, for the people of Canada, so much so that it is my intention to ask Mr. Huntting if he would be good enough to represent the Canadian wheat board at the international wheat conference in London in March.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister can say when Mr. Huntting retired or resigned. There must be some record. Is there nothing to show that he had any complaints to offer?


James Angus MacKinnon: I had oral conversations with Mr. Huntting when he intimated that he was resigning, the resignation to take effect on February 1, but as I have said, there is absolutely nothing in the files in the way of a formal resignation, and I propose to make inquiries. Most certainly he has never

Inquiries of the Ministry
intimated that he had any complaints whatsoever to make about the Canadian wheat board as to either personnel or operations.


Gordon Graydon: Surely he did not vanish into thin air.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Huntting is a
prominent and substantial citizen of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: There is nothing wrong
with that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but as hon. members know, these motions are not debatable.


Gordon Graydon: But the minister made
a great speech on it.


James Angus MacKinnon: Thank you.


James Horace King: The minister was replying orally. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is answered.


James Horace King: The question before the
house was a motion for the production of papers.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: And it was carried.


James Horace King: I asked whether it was
the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the recent resignation of Mr. Charles Huntting from the Canadian wheat board, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his resignation was accepted, and if so, on what date? Did he write any letters, and if so, were the letters withdrawn at the request of the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: I thought I had given the information quite fully with regard to this matter. Mr. Huntting resigned verbally, the resignation to take effect February 1, and it was regretfully accepted by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: By letter?


James Angus MacKinnon: Not by letter; there was no correspondence.
83166-32^



DEFENCE OF AMERICAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: According to today's newspapers arrangements are being made or are under discussion for a united defence force for this hemisphere, from the Arctic to the southern tip of the continent of South America. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs anything to say on this report?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The newspaper seems to have much more information than the minister in that regard. I must confess that I have none.



WAR ASSETS

[Stage Direction]
DISPOSITION OF LETHAL WEAPONS On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Arising out of a statement made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a short time ago, in which he said that all supplies disposed of by War Assets Corporation were sold through the regular channels, may I ask if lethal weapons have been sold in that way only, or are they sold to individuals or companies not engaged in that line of business?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Lethal weapons are not sold except by direction of the R.C.M.P. I am not sure whether they are sold at all, but if my hon. friend will place his question on the order paper I will have it go through the usual channels and bring down the information.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: I rise to a question of privilege affecting myself and other hon. members of this house. On February 13, at page 415 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence made this statement: There is to be the first public showing of the film "Exercise Musk-Ox" at the Capitol theatre at 3.15 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and I hope hon. members who are interested in the subject will take advantage of this opportunity to see what was done . . .
I and other hon. members walked to the Capitol theatre at the appointed time and found another performance being given
Inquiries of the Ministry

entitled "The Forgotten Factor," which no doubt referred to the minister's forgotten twenty-five per cent.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: I hope the hon. member's Sunday exercise did him some good. The showing of "Musk-Ox" will take place at 3.15 Sunday afternoon.


George Randolph Pearkes: Where?


Brooke Claxton: At the Capitol.


George Randolph Pearkes: Next Sunday?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.



REQUEST FOB STATEMENT OF GOVEBNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Victor Quelch: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce say when the government's flax policy for 1947 will be announced?


James Angus MacKinnon: That matter is being given direct attention at the present time.


Victor Quelch: When may we expect an announcement?


James Angus MacKinnon: I cannot say just at the moment.



EESIGNATION OF TIMBEE CONTBOLLEB-BE POET ON CEILINGS AND CONTEOLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Last Thursday I directed a couple of questions to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Is he in a position to answer them today? They were in relation to the timber controller, together with a request for the tabling of the report he made on timber control.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The resignation of the timber controller is impending, but it has not occurred yet. The date set is February 20. Any report he has made, which does not have a bearing on his resignation, is a privileged document and will not be brought down. When I receive his written resignation, if there is anything of interest to the 'house I shall be very glad to table it.



BARBARA ANN SCOTT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to direct a suggestion to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and may I just take advantage of this opportunity to suggest that the government take into consideration the advisability of shortening the title of the right hon. gentleman. I believe that would meet his own wishes, as it would certainly meet the wishes of many of us who want to direct questions to him from time to time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: As soon as the underground is finished I shall start on top. Particularly does my suggestion apply in the case of the under-secretary of state for external affairs, because such a long title does not seem quite appropriate to a man known affectionately all over the world as "Mike."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: You do not know how much help you are to me, actually. I wanted to suggest to the minister that a few moments ago, when he was answering questions as to the amount of money spent on the Canadian information service and information services generally, he might have taken the opportunity to mention-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I am prepared to allow the hon. gentleman to put a question, but evidently he is making a statement. I do not see any urgency in the matter he has mentioned, and I would suggest that he put it on the order paper.
Mr.	GRAYDON: Might	I	indicate	theurgency? What I intended	to	say to	the
minister was


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr.	GRAYDON: -I think	perhaps	the
best advertising for Canada and the best good will ambassador of Canada is our own Barbara Ann Scott.
Mr.	SPEAKER: I regret	to	say to	the
hon. gentleman that his question is out of order, and I would ask him to be good enough to heed the Speaker's ruling from now on.

Militia Act

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS-EDITORIAL IN "GLOBE AND mail"
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: We have been very quiet on this side and intend to stay quiet, but now that one of my colleagues has referred to the underground organization I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the responsible minister in charge of the information bureau has his attention been directed to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 17 entitled "Disgraceful Absenteeism of Conservative Members"? *
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to put his question on the order paper.



MILITIA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act-Mr. Clax-ton-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose on Friday night it was considering section 19.
On section 19-Cadet corps command.


Thomas Langton Church: I believe I raised this question the other day in the house for the first time. I wish to add something to what I said then with respect to the action taken.
I am afraid the minister does not understand the principles on which the cadet system was started in Ontario with education. It is unfortunate that at the present time there is no minister in the government from the Toronto district, and that the present minister and the parliamentary assistant came from one province. Neither of them came from Ontario where the greatest activity in the militia is found in cadet work.
Cadet corps were set up shortly in Ontario after confederation-because at that time we were part of the British empire; it seems now, however, that every day we are being talked out of it. I say we are not going to be talked out of the British empire. Canada will have to be fought out of the British empire. I am getting sick and tired of hearing hon. members make such statements, forgetting we are still part of that empire. Let me say to the minister that, with all due respect to him, he was never a public school cadet as one thinks of cadets in Ontario under this bill. My understanding is that he was a fine cadet officer in a corps in Lower Canada College, a private school. I have great respect for him and for his parliamentary assistant. I am ready to admit that he was a soldier in the first world war and that, as I have said, he did serve in a cadet corps in a private school.
We know that shortly after confederation the cadet system was set up under boards of education, comprising public and separate school boards throughout the country. But now the minister is going to upset the whole thing; with one wave of his hand he wipes out cadets fourteen years of age and under. Let me say to him that we came through two long wars through the aid of that cad'et system.
In the old days, in my native city of Toronto I began my public life serving on a school board; and the backbone of the militia and of recruiting in Ontario from the time before the Fenian raids, down through the South African war and the northwest rebellion, and through the two great wars, was the cadet system. In Ontario, after confederation, it did magnificent work, and the other provinces were glad to copy what had been done in that province. That was the system which developed after the Ryerson school bill.
Now what does the minister propose? He proposes to upset the whole thing and practically to wipe out all cadet public school corps of boys under fourteen years, the boys who have been the backbone of the cadet system. There are very few boys left of fourteen years in our public and separate schools in Ontario because today under a new system they have reached the first and second forms of high school at that age, and have moved up.
Today the minister proposes to upset that policy. Let me tell him that if he does that he will destroy the whole militia system. Now training is to be given two or three nights in the week. The school principals are complaining about this. These boys should be receiving cadet training in the public and separate schools. I might add that the De La Salle high school also has a fine cadet corps. But instead of permitting the departments of education to handle cadet training the minister is upsetting all that and making it federal.
The cadet corps which up to now have been operating in schools have had the advantage of training by men who have returned from service in two wars, and who have been prepared to give their time free. The boys have become so well trained in Toronto that on
Militia Act

many occasions they have won rifle shooting championships of all Canada. If the minister proceeds with his plan he is going to upset all this, and he will destroy the very foundation of the militia system as it was established in 1877.
Another feature to be considered is that the cadet developed a respect for authority. He was improved physically and in many other ways and became a credit to the school system. They, their children and their children's children have performed a worth-while service, and if the system is abolished the backbone of the militia of Canada has been destroyed.
A few nights ago a meeting of the board of education in Toronto was held. I am afraid they did not know this bill or are not familiar with the situation here because they say they believe the move being made by the minister was solely one in the interests of economy. It is not only an economic move, it is an abolitionist move. These outside cadet corps will interfere with the boys' studies in the schools. How can they keep up with the activities carried on in the high schools today? They cannot afford to go out a couple of cadet nights a week and miss their studies.
The same activities are carried on during school hours by the school boards. Uniforms are supplied and the government is relieved of all expense. It seems as though a great many people are afraid to mention the word "empire" but they are not afraid of that word in the United States. New York state is known as the empire state, and then there is the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The whole cadet system is based on flag and empire. We have Empire day on May 23 when the cadets in the different schools used to hold a big parade on University avenue, Toronto, and showed splendid training and ability in drill and all that kind of thing. Among the schools in Toronto there is keen competition as to which has the best cadet corps, Dufferin, Wellesley or Ryerson of old. As I say these cadet corps are the militia background of the whole system. At last Thursday's board meeting Doctor Goldring, the superintendent, said he could get little news of this bill from the newspapers.
So far as I am concerned we might just as well meet here in secret. The public back home do not know what is going on re abolition of cadets. I was asked many questions at a meeting in my constituency on Friday night. The people wanted to know what was going on here and they said they never saw it in the newspapers. In olden days we had six newspapers. I am not here to criticize the press-far from it; I have found

them a fine, decent lot, and I have had a great deal of experience with them. I can tell you that you cannot argue with any newspaper
because they always have the last word.
The people at this meeting on Friday night wanted to know if the cadets were to be abolished over the heads of the municipalities and the school boards. I could not inform them what goes on here in just five minutes. Patriotism has been abolished, especially in our history books. Prime Minister Attlee of Great Britain has stated that we do not owe any allegiance to our country; the new international part is the supreme part. He tells us to forget about our country because we have an international order. Patriotism is the cement that binds nations together. As Macaulay says, "history is patriotism teaching through example". All that has been abolished. Instead of love of country being developed we are being told that our goal now is an international order. As I say, patriotism is the cement that binds nations together, but instead of teaching Green's "History of England" in the schools, our boys and girls are told that our goal now is an international order. To such follies have we come that education has now lost its grip on common sense and the moral and political standards and on life.
The school boards in Ontario have not been consulted about this bill and they know nothing about it. The cadet system in the schools has cost the government little money. Wait until we see it next year under the new corps. Instead of having to spend two nights a week away from their studies, these boys should be learning how to qualify for positions in business and all that kind of thing. I feel quite sure that the department of education of Ontario no matter what we do, will continue the cadet system in the public schools.
There is one school in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's, which has a cadet corps numbering 640 enlistments in the last war, and about eighty-three of those cadets were killed in the last war. The same thing will be found in all the schools in Toronto. Education is a matter of property and, civil rights and belongs to the provinces. My. hon. friends come from Quebec, a very fine province, but I think they are going a little too far in trying to upset the Ontario school cadet system.
Why not let this stand over for a year? The time has come when we should hearken to the handwriting on the wall because this is going to lead to disruption in the schools.


Mr. MASSEY:: When the committee rose on Friday evening we had just reached section

Militia Act
19, which deals with cadet corps command, drill and equipment, et cetera. I do not desire unduly to take up the time of the committee, but I feel that this is a matter which should be thoroughly discussed and not passed over lightly. Hon. members will agree that the training of our youth, whether it be scholastically, culturally, artistically, practically or whatever else it may be, is training which lasts. When we are speaking of the cadet corps we are speaking of a training which lasts.
As I see it, cadet corps as they are set up in Nova Scotia or British Columbia or anywhere in between are set up on six basic principles. In the first place, it is felt that the cadet corps and service in the corps will generate a sense of national pride and conscience as few other media will. Service in a cadet corps will give to the young lad the idea of "My Country" as will few other equivalent means. In the first place, he wears the king's uniform, which in itself is a challenge, not only for its traditions but for what it means.
We have been altogether too lax in this country, diversified as wTe are with new citizens, to impress upon our people the idea of "My Country". If we turn our eyes to the south we will see in the United States of America, highly diversified as it is and has been, a melting-pot which offers a challenge faced by no other country. They have the salute to their flag in their schools and they repeat, the oath of allegiance every morning. This is done for one reason and one reason only, to build up the idea of "My Country". So it seems to me that through the cadet corps in our schools there can be given to the young lads in the fullest and best possible way the idea of "My Country", in other words, a sense of national pride and conscience.
Then, second, what better way is there of developing in the young lad a sense of selfconfidence, a feeling that he is somebody, that he is not just another person but that he has his responsibility? He is part of a precision machine, composed not of mechanical parts; he is not an automaton but an individual, working in the closest possible harmony with his fellows, and the discipline and the training that he gets through that means instils into him a sense of self-confidence which those of us who have passed through the cadet corps know full well.
In the third place, it tends to foster leadership and to generate within the young lad that sense of leadership which in wide degree varies from one to another but is latent in all. Those of us who have watched the cadet corps and seen them in action have again and again seen a young lad who has been just
another student in the school suddenly rise to leadership and assume proportions of which he himself never before suspected himself capable. He gets a chance of promotion to corporal, sergeant, staff-sergeant. He can do something, and tangibly.
In the fourth place, what better means is there of producing physical fitness among our young men? It was shocking at the start of this last war, as I have often mentioned in this house and only just recently, to learn of the lack of physical fitness of the Canadian eighteen years of age and older so far as military service was concerned, and that is the test. In the cadet corps the lad has a chance in his earliest days to gain a physical fitness which he would not otherwise get.
In the fifth place, it can supply a highly beneficial outlet for the natural energy and restless activity which are characteristic of all youth. One has only to look over the postwar record of world war I to realize how great a wave not only of crime but of juvenile delinquency swept this and other countries. One hesitates to say that history is repeating itself, but even thus early after world war II the same thing is being noted to a degree at least. What better way is there of keeping a lad usefully and, from his own point of view, profitably occupied than to give him an outlet for his physical energies through the cadet corps? I have not the figures nor could I get them before this afternoon, but from such experience as I have had, which is considerable, I would hazard the guess that the number of juvenile delinquents whose names are on the muster roll of a cadet corps is very small.
Lastly, it provides elementary training of a practical nature in case of a national emergency. As some one said recently in this house, we prepared for world war I as we did for the Boer war, and we prepared for world war II as we did for world war I. That is axiomatic in our military history. We have always banked on the time element to allow us to develop a new fighting force subsequently to the declaration of war. Can we, dare we forget that the time element which has always played into our hand will never again play into our hand? The technical and scientific nature of modern warfare is such that there will not be time to raise an army, navy or air force after the first gun has been fired or the first bomb has been dropped. The lifeblood of our three services is the young men who today enrol in the cadet service. We hope to God that their services will never actually be required in war, but surely
Militia Act

we think enough of them and of the homes they will establish to make it safe for them to plan those homes.
What is the present position in regard to the cadet corps? Section 10 of this bill reads:
Sections sixty, and sixty-one of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"60. Each cadet corps shall be subject to the authority and under the command of such officer as may be appointed by the minister."
"61. Cadet corps shall be drilled and trained as prescribed by the minister and may be furnished with arms, ammunition and equipment under conditions prescribed by him."
I asked the minister this question in the house on February 12, which appears at page 351 of Hansard:
Will he-
That is the minister.
[DOT]-be prepared to make a statement within the next day or so in regard to the fate he has in mind for the sea, army and air cadets.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) replied:
... It seems to me that the question of the cadets, reserves and active forces can properly be dealt with when the estimates are reached. I could deal with those matters, if the house wished, at some length on the orders of the day, but I do submit that would not be a proper use of the orders of the day.
I asked, Mr. Chairman, about the confusion relative to the future of cadet corps that existed across Canada and I wish to say to the minister, in spite of his answer to me on the orders of the day on Wednesday last, that there is confusion. What is the future of the cadet corps to be? If it is generally understood, or presumed, that there are to be no sponsored cadet corps in the primary schools, what support is -there to be for the cadet corps in the secondary schools? Whether the minister phrases it as seventy-five per cent of the requirements as stated last year or as a twenty-five per cent cut in the three services, the fact remains that the three armed services are to be only seventy-five per cent of what was originally planned for post-war. What is the fate of the cadet corps on this basis? Here we are in 1947, just a little over a year and a half away from V-J day. It seems to me that history is repeating itself even thus early. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has already referred this afternoon to the primary school cadets. We remember them, both before, during and immediately after world war I. What happened to them? There stood up in this chamber one member after another who, no doubt sincerely-who is to question that?-but under the spell of the pacifism that was then sweeping over the world, thought it was unneces-

sary for us to have this show of militarism in Canada, so that they beat about and badgered the government of the day until it succumbed and the primary school cadets virtually disappeared. That was the aftermath of world war I. Can it be that we are heading the same way again? Is history repeating itself? Can we never learn a lesson? Are we, just eighteen or nineteen months after V-J day, facing again the fact that the guts are being tom out of the cadet corps of Canada?
We have the sea cadets, a most excellent organization, an organization which made to the war a glorious contribution of which Canada will ever be proud, sponsored by the Navy League of Canada, and they have done a magnificent piece of work. We have the army cadets which contributed magnificently in their own way, virtually on their own, without such a benefactor as the navy league of the sea cadets. The hon. member for Broadview referred to one school in Toronto, out of whose cadet corps-a primary school, mark you-over 600 lads enlisted in the armed forces and of whom sixty-two did not return; they paid the supreme sacrifice. They received a grant of $4.25 a year from the government in Ottawa.
Then there are the air cadets. I can speak with some personal feeling in regard to the air cadets, for it was my privilege to have a good deal to do with their inception, called as I was from my station in December, 1940, to report to air force headquarters in regard to their organization. I saw it at first hand and had at least some small part in the development of the air cadets and the Air League of Canada.
The air cadet league has made an outstanding contribution. These lads, in so far as they have had the chance, have come through and showed the stuff of which they were made, and in their own way they made a contribution to the Royal Canadian Air Force second to none.
What is the position with regard to these three groups, the sea cadets, the army cadets and the air cadets? There are three separate acts to control their 'activities. Without burdening the committee with the acts, I shall let it rest there. There are three separate acts to control their activities, but if you shake it all down it will be found that in very great part the success of the cadets, whether it be sea, army or air, is due to the local organization, to the local people through the league in the case of the navy, through the league in the case of the air, through wellmeaning citizens or upstanding high school principles or whatever they may be, in the case of the army. And they have done a job.

Militia Act
But where is the federal authority? True, the armed forces themselves, the navy, the army and the air force, through their personnel, through their equipment, through their training syllabi, and by other means, have contributed most generously and successfully. But from what I have said, hon. members will imagine that there is a national result across Canada which shows a highly diversified outcome; for the simple reason that if the local organization, wherever it may be, is good, then the cadets are good; if it is mediocre somewhere else, then the cadets are mediocre; if it is poor somewhere else, then the cadets are poor. Why should that be? Simply because there is a lack of a central control, a central coordinating body, which surely is the federal authority.
What is offered to the sea cadet? Not only does he get excellent training in the normal course of events, but if he distinguishes himself and proves worthy he has a chance to go to sea in the summer time. What about the air cadet? The air cadet has a chance to go to an airfield in the summer time, to get a few flips, to hold the stick and see how it feels, to get instructions for a fortnight from the instructors at the particular station who are fully qualified to give it. But what about the army cadet?-and it is for him that I speak particularly. The army today is "full up"-to use his own words-with gadgets which are fascinating to him. The new armaments appeal to him enormously. What he would give to go to some army post somewhere, some station somewhere or a camp where, for example, there are tanks to be driven, to be told about tanks, to learn about tanks. Why should not he have the same relative opportunity as the sea or air cadet?
The whole thing is out of balance, and yet if one surveys the numbers enrolled, without laying them before the committee, he will find that the number of sea cadets is relatively small, the number of air cadets is relatively small, the number of army cadets is large compared with the other two, but all three are woefully small compared with the youth and young man population of the Dominion of Canada. The great outcry is not alone for the continuance of the cadet system; it is not only for a continuance but for a bolstering of it, a building of it up, a levelling off of the cadet system between the three services, sea, army and air at a new high level.
There are those who will argue, as apparently the minister does, that the cadet corps have no place in primary schools. Well, I take issue with that, and grave issue. The school to which I made reference and to which
the hon. member for Broadview made reference is a primary school, and what a contribution it has made. I have under my hand a letter from its principal which I shall not take the time to read into the record; but it is a record of achievement of which he should be proud. Let hon. members realize that in 1945, out of every ten lads in Canada who completed the eighth grade, only seven went on to the ninth. In other words, if you take the cadet corps out of the primary schools, then you are depriving three lads out of every ten of getting cadet corps training, and to me, frankly, that does not make sense.
Take the small country schools which give not only the primary but the secondary courses. There are comparatively few pupils in many of these schools, but there are enough boys in the whole school to make a cracking good cadet corps; there are not enough seniors to make a cadet corps; therefore there is no cadet corps at all because there is no training provided for those in the primary courses.
For those who feel that that corps training may be too military, that there may be too much emphasis placed upon the military end of it, let them remember that the effect of th\>
military training goes to the senior boys. The junior boys are not mentally prepared or equipped to accept the sort of training which the older boy is. Therefore if you remove the cadet corps from the primary grade, then you are asking your cadet corps to become more and more military. I merely state, this in passing.
I should like to make these suggestions to the minister.
In the first place, I feel that there should be a centralization of control for the combined services. In recent weeks we have witnessed the bringing together into one building under one minister of the chiefs of staff of the three services, something which is acceptable to them, certainly acceptable to the minister and, I think, acceptable to hon. members. It is a good move, as the hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out the other day with such outstanding eloquence and clarity, and as was also pointed out by the hon. member for Trinity. You cannot take a country from the air. The army must march in; the army cannot get there unless the navy takes it there, and both the army and the navy need umbrellas. All three services have to work together. Never has there been such a coordinated team as there was in world war II. Therefore we set up a cadet corps for the navy, for the army and for the air force, so that Tom, Dick or Harry does not know what the other one is
Militia Act

doing. It does not make sense. There should be a coordination of effort of the cadet corps under one combined/ command in Ottawa. If it is necessary for the three armed forces, it is equally necessary for the cadet corps.
Second, there should be a central cadet organization in Ottawa, which, after all, is the headquarters of our three armed services. Again, let us recognize that the problems of education are the problems of the individual provinces, and that there is always danger of treading upon provincial autonomy or of domination by the dominion. For the moment let us not get into such things in connection with the matter I am discussing. They have their place and, as I pointed out before, the autonomy of a province is a precious thing. It is precious to me as a resident of one particular province. But we are now talking about a Canadian service, all-embracing as far as Canada is concerned. I do not suggest that there should be abridgment of autonomy or domination from Ottawa in these matters, but direction; and the purpose of that direction would be unquestionably to raise the standard of performance of all cadets, and to equalize the national effort.
Why should it be that the cadet corps in one place is better than the cadet corps in another? If it is dependent solely upon the local authority to do what it can here, what it can there, that is bound to be the case. But why should it be that this or that province cannot compete interprovincially because they have not the same opportunity in one province as in another? That does not make sense either.
I think the minister will realize that there is a certain amount of friendly competition among the three services. The navy knows it is the senior service and governs itself accordingly. God bless it. The army knows that, where it may be on paper junior to the navy, it is certainly senior to the air force. We admit we are the junior service, the youngest most virile and the best of all. That competition is there. But put that sort of feeling into the hearts and minds of youngsters and it ceases to be competition and becomes rivalry. That is the sort of thing you do not want to inculcate in youngsters.
Imagine little Mr. Sea Cadet seeing little Mr. Army Cadet going off for the summer to drill on the drill square while he is going off on a ship; and imagine little Mr. Air Cadet seeing little Mr. Army Cadet going to the drill square when he is going off to fly! But let the army cadet be able to say, "Fly if you want to; I am going to drive a tank".

I say, equalize the opportunities which the lads will have and then build up interprovincially; build up your inter-command, interdistrict, whatever it is, and you will not have any question of rivalry. You will have competition.
In the third place, I would suggest to the minister that he rewrite all three acts into one. Make it one act to be known as the Cadet Act of Canada. Let us away with pigeon-holing the navy or the army or the air force. Instead, bring them all into one act. There can be sufficient flexibility to meet the three services.
In the fourth place, let there be equality of schedules and syllabi as laid down by each service and directed by the central authority. Let there not be any one corps as a whole, a national corps, in any one service better than the others except by proven worth rather than by equipment given or chances afforded:
In the fifth place, broaden the training for all these cadets. Do not limit it to whatever it may be that can be done within the confines of the school building or the schoolyard. Let the army take on its responsibility in connection with these lads in the fullest possible way. Show them what a route march
is,	what it is to bivouac, what it is to use the latest mechanical devices, and all the rest of
it.	And the same with your air force, your air cadets, and your sea cadets. Broaden the training in all three services.
In the sixth place, let there not be any appointment of officers by someone far removed from the local scene. Take only the navy league, which appoints the officers for the sea cadets, and I am quite sure that the hon. member for Wentworth, who has himself proven so efficient in that capacity, will bear me out when I say that that system works. Let the local authority under the league do the appointing of officers.
Lastly, let there be a close liaison between the leagues, navy, army and air force, and the senior naval, army or air officer commanding. Let them work together for these ends and not vie with one another to see who can raise the most money locally to get this or that which is better than can be got somewhere else. Let us all work together.
Now let me look back for a moment at section 19. I can see the purport of Bill No. 14. We, on this side of the house, have endeavoured to point out what we felt to be its weaknesses; but as far as section 19 is concerned, I think it is insidiously and woefully dangerous and is farther reaching than perhaps the minister realizes. If he realized

Militia Act
just how far-reaching it is I am sure he would have none of it. It makes the minister a sort of supemational chief boy scout. He is the Pooh-Bah of Canada's military youth. I point out to him that that particular section is the ward heeler's delight. The minister, a civilian, elected to parliament, a member of a party, becomes a member of the government and is going to take into his hands the appointment of cadet officers.


Mr. MARTIN:: He was a good soldier, too.


Denton Massey: I am not saying for a moment that he is not. I am not talking to the hon. gentleman whom I am now facing. But this bill is not written for today or tomorrow: it is for those who may follow the minister. I am not talking about this government or perhaps the next.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There will be a new government anyway.


Denton Massey: I say this is a most insidious clause, for the simple reason that the minister will not know the situation in whatever town it may be. He will have to be advised by those whom he knows, and those whom he knows in that particular town, the chances are, will be of his party. It is reasonable to suppose so; so that in good faith he may appoint someone wdio is a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of his party and who will take advantage of the situation.


Brooke Claxton: There has never been the slightest suggestion of that in connection with these matters.


Denton Massey: I am not saying; I am not suggesting or even insinuating that there has been, and I am not suggesting that under the present minister there will be. But this bill, I repeat, is not written for today. I am looking ahead a little bit, and it is one of those things that can creep in and prove at a later date to be the most destructive, violent and vicious instrument. Frankly, I do not see the point of it at all. I am visualizing what may happen, and it seems to me that this sort of thing is the method-to use an extreme example-that Hitler used to produce a generation which this world has grown to loathe and to hate, for the simple reason that when once politics-inadvertently or otherwise-creeps into this type of set-up, then, to use the language of the services, "you've had it".
So I point out to the minister, as earnestly as I can, where that section may lead, and I make it clear to him, as to the former secretary of state who interrupted me, that I am casting no aspersions on the minister. I am
pointing out the danger of that section being on the statute books of the country, and accordingly I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), an amendment to this section, with the following recommendations:
1.	That there be cadet training in the primary schools of Canada.
2.	That there be centralization of cadet direction as there is at present in the armed forces.
3.	That there be broadened and brightened syllabi and activities in all three cadet services.
4.	That there be greatly increased grants to all three cadet services to accomplish these purposes.
5.	That this may be the case, and I repeat what I said in the beginning, in order that within our youth there may be generated a national pride and conscience, so that selfconfidence may be developed, together with a sense of leadership and ambition, with the promotion of physical fitness, and at the same time an outlet be supplied for the unbounded energy and restless activities of our boys, by means of this elementary military training.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo, that section 10 of Bill 14 be deleted.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think just about everything that can be said has been said about this section, but I should like to say a word in connection with cadet training in the primary schools as reported at page 414 of Hansard the minister said:
... we will bring the army cadet training into line with that for the navy and air force, and limit the training to the boys who can benefit from it. Those are boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age.
The minister refers to the boys who can benefit from this training. I wish to point out to him that in my own city of Toronto cadet training has been of the greatest benefit, not particularly to those boys over fourteen years of age but to the younger boys. They start in at ten, eleven, twelve or thirteen years of age, and in some of the schools where we have a good many so-called new Canadians, or Canadians of middle European descent, it has given these boys a sense of being Canadians. That is where you have to start; the early stages is the time to train these boys. Two or three times here the Jesse Ketchum school in Toronto, under Mr. Kirk, has been mentioned. Of the boys who attended that school, 640 went to the war and over sixty were killed. Cadet training has been maintained in that school since those boys were ten, eleven or twelve years of age, and it has had wonderful results. There is groat need
Militia Act

in other parts of the city for the same thing. I do not know the cost of training these boys under fourteen years of age; I do not think it would be very great, but I believe the training has been a wonderful thing for the underprivileged boys, of whom I have many in my own riding, because most of them never have an opportunity to go to high school. They begin to work at an early age; they have only a very short time to be in the cadet corps; so why should they not have the opportunity to receive this training? It does not do them any harm, and it gives them much greater pride in their own schools than they would otherwise have. The mere fact that they wear the little red coats of which they are all so proud gives them greater incentive to be good Canadians.
The decision to train these boys only where there are groups of twenty or more is a factor of some importance outside the larger cities. Look at the number of schools throughout the country which will be deprived of this training because they will have fewer than twenty boys over fourteen years of age.
I do not want to take up more time, but I did wish to register my protest against the decision of the minister, or the decision of somebody else, to cease military training in the schools for boys under the age of fourteen. Those who have told him that the greatest benefit will be derived by boys over fourteen years of age do not know what they are talking about. The younger they are when they get this training, the better.


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I should like to say just a word or two in connection with cadet training, and to ask the minister one or two questions which he might answer when he speaks. The first question is whether the meaning of this new section is that the minister will have authority to designate where new cadet corps may be set up.


Brooke Claxton: He already has that power.


George Stanley White: Will he also have authority to discontinue a cadet corps? I wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood. Many of those of us who served in the first war received our first military training in cadet corps in secondary schools; and I am sure anyone who received cadet training prior to the first war found it of considerable benefit and advantage after enlisting. Anyone who has had much to do with boards of education and school principals, at least in my part of Ontario, will agree that in a school where they have a cadet corps

the principal has always found the discipline and educational standing of the school have been greatly improved.
I should like to ask the minister also to state, if there is to be any reduction in the number of cadet corps, whether that reduction is being made on the grounds of economy only, or whether this is the beginning of a repetition of what happened1 after the last war, and whether once again we are to be influenced by certain pacifists and people with isolationist leanings in this country. I sincerely hope that by this amendment the minister will not do anything that will reduce the number of cadet corps, and that the annual expenditures for this purpose will not be reduced in any way.


Frank Exton Lennard: I find myself very much in the position stated a few moments ago by the hon. member for St. Paul's, in that I believe nearly everything that can be said on this subject has been said this afternoon; and since I am always critical of repetition in this house, I shall be brief.
I should like, however, to mention one angle of this matter. I am not so much concerned with the military, naval or air training that the youth in the cadet corps of this country are to receive; I am concerned with the character building and discipline that create a better youth in the properly conducted cadet corps. I know, from personal experience in connection with naval and sea cadets, that where at one time we had juvenile delinquency to a considerable degree, through the efforts of the chief of police who was instrumental in helping bring about the organization of a good sea cadet corps in the community, today we have practically no juvenile delinquency. In addition to that, many of the lads who are passing out of the sea cadet corps are better equipped in every way to make a good showing in life. Many of these boys who might otherwise have been directed to a life of crime have been greatly helped.
In my opinion, the cadet movement in Canada should not be curtailed in any way, not only from the point of view of a training ground for members of the armed forces, but from that of character building and disciplinary training which the youth of our country get at a time when they will go in one direction or another, toward becoming either good citizens or criminals.
If it follows from section 19, as has been suggested this afternoon, that the minister will have authority to appoint all commanding officers of cadet corps in Canada, then all I have to say is that our cadet system is being thrown into the laps of local politicians.

Militia Act


William Ross Macdonald: In respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood, might I point out that in my opinion it is a negative motion, and the defeating of the motion to carry this clause would have the same effect.
The hon. member's motion is that section 19 of the bill be deleted. I would refer the committee to standing order 76, which states:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
Then paragraph 669 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, states:
Each clause is a distinct question and must be separately discussed.
And paragraph 676 states:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
It occurs to me that to negative the motion to adopt section 19 would have the same result as the hon. member's motion. Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


Denton Massey: If a vote on section 19 negatives that section, and the rest of the bill is accepted as amended from time to time, then I understand that in the final bill presented for third reading section 19 does not appear as having been negatived.


William Ross Macdonald: The records would show that it had been negatived.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Thus far I have not taken part in the debate on Bill No. 14, in the belief that matters before the house should be dealt with by those who are familiar with them. Not having been a military man, I have refrained up to now from taking part in the discussion. However, I hold a somewhat different position in this discussion concerning cadets because I was associated' with the cadet movement for a number of years. Even now, through my connection with the Navy League of Canada I have something to do at least with making preparations for the training of sea cadets. So that when any matter pertaining to cadet training comes before the house, I feel I should say at least a few words. I shall be brief, however, because up to now the matter has been well handled by the hon. members for Broadview, Greenwood, St. Paul's and Wentworth, the last named within my knowledge having had considerable association with sea cadet training.
I am frankly alarmed as to the portent of the discussion in respect of cadets. For many years, and particularly between 1930 and 1940,
many bitter attacks were made in this house upon cadet training. During those years I had the pleasure

and I always considered it such-of rising in defence of that training.
I remember clearly that one hon. member, who is not now in the house but who represented at that time the constituency then known as Southeast Grey, was most bitter in her attacks on cadet training. Fortunately, however, to the house came a distinguished lady from the constituency of Yukon, who had had wide experience in cadet training because of her sons' having taken cadet courses, following which they performed outstanding, service in the first great war. When the then hon. member for Yukon was finished with the hon. member for Southeast Grey on that occasion I do not believe we heard anything further from the hon. member for Southeast Grey against cadet training.
As I listened to the debate today, I asked myself this question:	Must we go over once
again this performance of debating cadet training? I cannot add much to what has been said by other hon. members, but from my long association with cadet training I know tha-t. what they said is true. I agreed particularly with the hon. member for Greenwood when he pointed out that, better than any other type of training to which young people are subjected, cadet training teaches them to be good citizens, to be civil, courteous, manly and smart in their actions. I have always supported this type of training, and have opposed any measures taken against it.
I fear that at some time a minister who might not be as friendly to cadet training as the present one might hold office, and if the whole programme were beyond the control of local authorities it would be too bad for this country.
In my own city of Toronto there is the Oak-wood collegiate institute which has an excellent cadet corps. On many occasions I have wratched these boys training in the schoolyard, and it has been a delight to me to see them performing the evolutions they were called upon to perform as cadets, and1 how smartly they went through their drill. I am glad to know that the cadets of that school won the rifle-shooting contest. I am not sure whether it was for the whole of Canada, but in any event it covered a very wide field.
I rose merely to add my voice to what has been said on this side of the house in protest against any move that will restrict our cadet training. On the contrary, I will support any programme brought into this house by this or any other government, if I am in the house
Militia Act

when another government comes in, to promote greater and wider cadet training. As I said when I rose, and as I say again, nothing will do as much for the young folk as a thorough, sound and efficient system of cadet training.


Mr. BAKER:: I appreciate the words of the hon. member for Davenport and I agree with him. I agree with some of the opinions that have been offered this afternoon, but I would point out that section 19 is an all-important section. One thing we found out in this war was that we needed the coordination of the various armed services and that we needed standardization of arms and equipment. Who can give this better than the minister or the officers appointed by the minister under the new section 60, which will read:
Each cadet corps shall be subject to the authority and under the command of such officer as may be appointed by the minister.
What could be more necessary than that if we are to try to coordinate our efforts? I am a great believer in the cadet corps because I once was a member myself. I think they are a splendid institution, both for building up morale and patriotism and also for providing military training for the youth of Canada. But this training must be coordinated and it must have some definite direction. It is all very well to say that that direction could come from the officers appointed by town councils or other bodies, but I maintain that you could never get standardization or bring about coordination along general lines no matter how well intentioned the people making the appointments might be or how well intentioned the officers who were appointed might be.
This is most necessary if we are to look upon our cadet corps as a possible future fighting force, which, after all, is what it should be if the need should ever arise. Therefore we must have definite direction through parliament, which means through the Minister of National Defence and down the line to the officers commanding who are appointed by the Minister of National Defence. The new section 61 will read:
Cadet corps shall be drilled and trained as prescribed by the minister and may be furnished with arms, ammunition and equipment under conditions prescribed by him.
I am thoroughly in agreement with that. I think anyone who realized how difficult it was during the war, even in the N.P.A.M., to get sufficient ammunition and one thing and another will also agree. If you have the minister coordinating the whole effort you will [Mr. MacNicol.l
have a far better opportunity of supplying your cadet corps with the necessary equipment and other facilities than if you have the disjointed) effort which is bound to occur if each town or city is allowed to appoint the commanding officer.
I do not wish to take up more time with this section, but I could not let it go by without expressing my views because I sincerely feel that I am right. I hope that section 19 of Bill No. 14 will pass without too much debate or criticism.


Mr. MERRITT:: I would point out one thing to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare who has just spoken. We are not suggesting that the officers commanding the cadet corps would be appointed by the cities or' towns or villages. The present section 60 reads:
All cadet corps shall be subject to the authority and under the orders of the district officer commanding.
There is no suggestion there that a town could appoint the cadet officers. My view is that what has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood is sound. Not only is the present section better than the one the government proposes to substitute, but there should be no change in it until the whole question of the coordination of the cadets in the three services is considered and dealt with. I would much rather see the cadet corps under the command of the district officers commanding than under any other command. I am sure that the officer actually supervising the cadets in any command must be a soldier. I do not think it is fair to an officer commanding a command to have a soldier junior to him running around his command issuing orders and not being responsible to the officer commanding the command. I think the minister would be well advised to take what has been said on this side of the house under consideration and agree that this section shall not be amended1 until he has had an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation.


Mr. HAMEL:: I should like to ask the minister three questions. Has the government or the minister received any complaints from the school commissionaires association of Quebec in connection with the training of the cadet corps in the schools? If so, what was the nature of those complaints and have any steps been taken by his department in connection with them? Would the minister give the committee a statement on the methods that are used for the recruiting of cadet corps?
Mr. PEA.RKES: One of the great objections we have is that the control of the cadet corps

Militia Act
is placed under the minister instead of being under the district officer commanding. The result is that these various cadet corps could easily become political footballs. Since the previous amendment has been ruled out of order, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood:
That section 19 be amended by deleting the words, "such officer as may be appointed by the minister" in line 40 and substituting therefor the words, "the officer commanding the command in which the cadet corps is located," and deleting the words, "by the minister" in line 42 and the words, "by him" in line 44.


William Ross Macdonald: The question is on the amendment. May I take this opportunity of reminding the committee that when the house is in committee it is not necessary to have a seconder to a motion.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on the subject of the cadets in Canada, I should like to join with those who have already spoken in recognizing the importance of the work of the cadets, in either the navy, the army or the air force. I feel that those who have spoken critically have said what they did because they have not understood the position, and because of that it might be useful if I put on Hansard a summary of the situation regarding cadets in Canada at the present time.
In the first place, it should be said that cadet work in Canada goes back a long time, and that the cadets have been a useful instrument not only in youth development, as has been stated by other members, and in building up a better .physique and in giving a sense of comradeship, of unity, and of service to the country, but also as a training ground for those who might enter the reserve or active forces of Canada. They have done good work, and nothing we intend will interfere with that work. But the feeling of the officers is, and I must say that since I have looked into it I share their opinion, that while there has been exceptionally good work done in connection with the cadets in Canada there has been some wasted effort, and it is believed that the cadet forces of Canada can be made more useful if the service is limited to boys between the ages of fourteen and eighteen who are capable of availing themselves of the training. This does not mean at all that I do not think that boys below the age of fourteen should not receive training of various kinds; but it does mean that the officers of the department take the view, and I share it, that boys below fourteen years of age should not receive military training in this country at this time, and that the training which they
should get can better be given by other agencies which do not come under the scope of the federal government.


Denton Massey: Would the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: I think I ought to be allowed to finish.


Denton Massey: It is a perfectly polite question.


Brooke Claxton: I am perfectly polite myself.


Denton Massey: It is mutual. I was going to ask the minister, who has said that he has consulted the military authorities and has been given their opinion, did he also consult the headmasters and principals of schools and teachers?


Brooke Claxton: I have consulted some headmasters and some teachers; I have had some experience myself, not only as a cadet, but also on the board of a school, and I must say that, as a result of my experience, I am in accord with the views of the officers. With the greatly improved training facilities of every kind which we now have, we believe that the cadet work for boys between the ages of fourteen and eighteen can be made very much more valuable to the country and very much more interesting to them, and that it should also lead a considerable proportion of those boys into the reserve forces after they have graduated from the cadets.
May I give the committee a brief description of the situation regarding cadets before, during and after the war in the navy, army and air force? May I say at once that what is intended in consequence of these proposals is not a curtailment of cadet work to anything like the pre-war level. Hon. members will see, when the estimates are brought down, that they envisage an expenditure on cadet work fifteen times as great as the amount expended on cadet work before the war, but the expenditures will not be as great as the peak reached during the war years. Our belief is that we should not continue to make expenditures on military purposes at anything like the peak during the war years, but that we should go forward to a post-war arrangement which will meet the needs of the country both with regard to the active and reserve forces, as well as the cadet forces, and do it in a way which will give the utmost value for the taxpayer's dollar expended on defence.
We may look at the situation regarding the navy first. Prior to the end of 1941, the sea cadet movement was comprised of some twenty-five units, totalling 2,500 cadets and
Militia Act

was entirely operated by the Navy League of Canada as an army cadet corps. Training grants and part of camp costs were paid by the army. At the end of 1941 the navy assumed responsibility for this support. During the war the number of sea cadets expanded to some ninety corps, totalling at the peak about
15.000.	Prior to and during the war, drills were carried out two nights a week, if possible.
At present there are 12,000 sea cadets enrolled, of whom about 7,000 are in active attendance. Raising the age limit from twelve to fourteen will lead to the total enrolled number dropping to about 10,000, which is the top figure which it is felt can be effectively handled at present.
A new progressive training syllabus has been issued, drawn up on a basis of one two-hour parade a week, to be augmented by as many voluntary parades as possible. In addition, in those towns and cities in which naval divisions are located-in some twelve out of eighteen places where sea cadets are established-more advanced courses are being held for the more advanced and older cadets. The training year culminates with the summer camps, which this year have been allowed for on a basis of 4,000 cadets for a seven.day period or a longer period for a smaller number.
Let us look at the army. Before the war there were 70,000 army cadets, a considerable proportion of whom were under fourteen years of age. Camps were not generally provided during the immediate pre-war years. During the war the total strength reached a peak of
114.000.	'
At present there are 91,000 cadets, of whom about 50,000 are estimated to be between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. Following the end of the present school year, army cadet training will be organized in two types of corps: (a) open corps affiliated with reserve force units, and so forth; (b) school corps sponsored by boards of education, some of which are also affiliated with reserve units. Altogether 344 corps are affiliated and further affiliation is being strongly encouraged.
Terms of enrolment are, in open corps, ages fourteen to eighteen years; and in school corps, students enrolled in grade 9 and under eighteen years of age at September 1, 1947.
A strength of twenty cadets will be required to form a corps. It is expected that a quota of 50,000 will take care of all the present senior cadets. A new improved programme of training is to be issued. Camps of seven days will be available for eight thousand boys with generally one camp for each command. General officers commanding will have author-

ity to increase the number of days at camp up to a maximum of ten days for a fewer number of boys.
With regard to air cadets, there were no air cadets before the war. They were started in 1940 and reached a peak of 32,500 cadets in 360 squadrons. The training during the war was 100 hours a year plus fifteen days in summer camp for about 10,000 boys.
The post-war target for the air cadets is
15,000	in 225 squadrons. The present strength is about 15,000 senior cadets. I may say that the air cadet league have agreed that that is about the right number for air cadets and have settled on the allocation. The peacetime training provides for eighty-six hours annually for all with an additional fifty-five hours of practical instruction during fifteen days at summer camps which are provided this year for 6,000 cadets.
In each case the totals of boys in age groups fourteen to eighteen, who are expected to be in active attendance and available for training, will be within the totals mentioned for this year's work. While quotas have been allotted to the various commands, these are intended as a guide for purpose of planning and will be subject to adjustment as circumstances require.
I repeat, post-war training will be greatly superior to that before the war with regard to trained instructors, training facilities, clothing, equipment, weapons and so forth.
I have given this summary picture of the situation regarding cadets, and believe that it does meet every point made with regard to cadets by hon. members who have spoken in this discussion or have criticized what has been proposed outside the house, except the one question of junior cadets. On that I say our view is that it is preferable not to give boys under fourteen years of age military training at this time, and if they are to have physical education, group work or other kinds of activities to arouse their interest in their country, to give them opportunities for organized work and development, then we believe that that training should be done by some agency other than the federal government.
May I now touch on some of the questions raised by hon. members? The hon. member for Greenwood referred to the fact that in the United States they salute the flag and had, as he said, a great demonstration of patriotism. I must say that I have a great respect for our good neighbour to the south; but, despite the measures adopted, I do not believe that we need to take second place to them or to any other country in the patriot-

Militia Act
ism of our youth in Canada. He mentioned the fact of juvenile delinquency, which is frequently raised in this connection. I understand that juvenile delinquency is less today than it has been for a good many years; and I would suggest that while group work is undoubtedly a useful way of preventing juvenile delinquency, that work can best be carried on below the age of fourteen by agencies other than the federal government.
The hon. member referred to the fact that he thought our cadet work as between the navy, army and air force was out of balance. That is arguable, possibly, at the present time. This year we propose to have 50,000 senior cadets in the army, 10.000 in the navy and
15.000	in the air force. What other division should be made, I do not know. That seems to be a good one, in view of past experience. It is not out of all proportion to the armed forces, and it does take account of the fact that there are, we believe, enough local agencies interested to take care of that number of boys and to do it well, though possibly not in full this year.
The hon. member urged that there should be a centralization of the control of cadet work with regard to army, navy and air cadets. If by that he means the closest possible coordination so as to ensure similarity of training, in so far as the training can be similar, similar syllabi and similar terms and conditions, then I am in complete agreement with him. This is being worked through the interservice committees of the officers of the three services engaged in cadet work; but I would point out that his very suggestion cuts directly across the amendment first proposed by himself and then the succeeding amendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo who wants to leave the control of army cadets under the general officer commanding the command, and not have that degree of coordination which, I submit, can come only through their heading up at Ottawa in whoever happens at present to be the one person who is responsible for all three services, namely the minister himeslf. This suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood and the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo would be directly counter to the second and third objects in the list enumerated by the hon. member for Greenwood and would avoid that coordination and degree of directed activity which we are aiming to have. The fact is that this proposal made by section 19 is expressly and deliberately intended to recognize the increased importance which we attach to cadet corps work. We believe that, in
order to bring that work to its greatest possible development in Canada, it should be directed from defence headquarters at Ottawa.


An hon. MEMBER:: By the minister.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member can say "by the minister", but under our parliamentary system the minister is responsible for everything that goes on in the department. As the hon. member probably knows, the minister does not personally deal with matters of command of individual corps. What the section says is that each cadet corps shall be subject to the authority and under the command of such officer as may be appointed by the minister. The minister in this case would invariably act on the recommendation of the district officer commanding the command. The general officer commanding the command would have to send his recommendation in to the minister, where it would be recommended to and approved in the same way as are appointments, promotions and retirements, by the governor in council. All these are done at Ottawa today, but they are done in accordance with recognized procedure, and to leave this with the general officer commanding the command might lead to a lack of uniformity in practice, which could be achieved only through the direction of army headquarters itself.
So that in the end, in order to secure uniformity of practice and coordination, it would be necessary that ultimately it should come to army headquarters and should form the subject matter of a regulation, and that in the endi it should be done under the responsibility of the minister. I am afraid you cannot escape from that as long as you have our system of responsible and representative institutions, and it seems to me that putting it in this form does recognize the importance of cadet corps. It recognizes and gives effect to the desirability of having coordination at headquarters, and also-and this is one of the most important features-it permits of changes and developments as they may occur. We have had in effect commands as the major military organizations in Canada-I refer to the organization of Canada into five commands-for a matter of only some months now, and it may be necessary at some future time to change that organization. We have changed it from districts and we are changing it now into commands, provided that this bill is carried; and it may be desirable for cadet corps purposes to have some other organization.
It may be desirable that the officer commanding areas as well as the officer commanding commands should have power to deal with cadets. In order to have some element of
Militia Act

flexibility, it is necessary that the power to do it should) not be set forth expressly in the statute and given to some designated' officer but should foe reserved for exercise by the minister.
With regard to section 61, under the law as it stands today cadets corps shall be drilled and trained as prescribed, and* may be furnished with arms, ammunition and equipment under conditions prescribed-prescribed by whom? By the governor in council. That is as it stands today, and) if that is a desirable way of conducting cadet corps work in Canada, then I think the world has turned upside down. We must get away from referring everything to the governor in council, and the one person who has to take responsibility under our system is the minister. I submit you might as well put that in the statute and have done with it there.
With regard to some of the other points, the hon. member for Peterborough West asked if the minister had authority to discontinue a cadet corps. Under the existing provisions, in section 59, the minister had and has the authority to authorize the formation of cadet corps, and I am advised that that includes authority to disband them. The answer therefore is yes. He asked if there would be a reduction in the number of cadet corps. There will be no reduction in the number of cadet corps of boys who fall within the classes I mentioned, aged fourteen to eighteen, provided that they are organized in corps of twenty or more.
As regards the question asked by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, I shall have the answer at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering an amendment to section 19, moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo.
Mr. PEARIvES: In view of the statement by the minister, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that amendment. However, I cannot avoid observing that if the minister had made that or a similar statement, for which we have been pressing for a long time, hours of discussion might have been saved.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member permission to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.
[Mr. Claxton.J


Brooke Claxton: I am very much obliged to the hon. member for his remarks. I must say that if I had been in this job longer I might have made the statement earlier. But I would draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the representatives of the cadet corps, the navy league and the air cadets have been communicated with and are familiar with the situation. I believe it would be the unanimous wish of the house that I should convey our thanks to the organizations which have carried on this valuable work before, during and since the war. I refer to schools which have operated school cadet corps and those who have interested themselves in the operation of open cadet corps in the army, as well also to all those who have worked with them, including particularly the masters, teachers and instructors who have devoted a good part of their time to this work, and also those other friends of the schools, of the bo.vs and of this movement who have contributed generously to its support. I should like to refer also to the very special position of the navy league in connection with sea cadets. They started this work long before the first war and, as I have said, they were supported by the army with grants of money in respect of each cadet, as weli as other assistance, including support with respect to camps. I regret that, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, it was not possible to discuss with the representatives of the navy league the arrangements which I believe will ultimately be found by them to be thoroughly satisfactory. Things had to be done in order to acquaint various units and formations with what was happening; and owing to the circumstances I have indicated it was found impossible to discuss with them, as I should have liked, the details of this plan. I can tell hon. members, however, that just today I received a communication from them asking for an interview, and I shall be glad to see their representatives as soon as possible in order to arrive at a workable arrangement.
With regard to the air cadet league, we were able to see their representatives and work out with them the main details of the plan which I have announced. I am going to meet them again next week and discuss further with them the details on which we can cooperate for the good of their movement and the good of Canada.
I should add that in all the work of this department so far we have tried to cooperate with the people interested in the various fields. For example. I have already had a meeting

Militia Act
with the council of reserve associations with regard to the reserves of the army, and with a number of other agencies. In every possible way we aim to cooperate with them in seeing what can be done to meet the particular problem. I hold out to hon. members here, as to those agencies in support of which they have spoken, the warmest offer of complete cooperation in these fields in which we are all interested.
Might I now answer the questions asked by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche. I find that before I entered the department a communication was received from the province of Quebec Catholic school trustees' association forwarding a resolution adopted November 13, 1946, in which they protested against the continuation of cadets of all classes in their schools. I have only this to say, that the arrangement under which cadets have been established in the schools goes back to an agreement with most of the provinces which was arrived at under the Strathcona trust. The date of the agreement with Quebec was 1911. Under that agreement the training carried out is provided for, and cadet corps are organized only by written request of the sponsor; that is, the educational association. I might quote from the regulations for the cadet services of Canada. Paragraph 8 reads:
8.	If the proposed cadet corps is connected with an educational institution, MFB 252 will be signed by the headmaster or principal of the school, and "the secretary or other officials of the school board; and if under the jurisdiction of provincial educational authorities will also bear the written sanction of the minister, superintendent or other official head of the department of education of the province, or of the chairman of the school board concerned.
Paragraph 9 continues:
9.	Cadet corps of the Royal Canadian Army Cadets shall be divided into
(a) school cadet corps formed under the sponsorship of the proper school authorities.
So I would say to my hon. friend that anything done so far has been done with the cooperation and sponsorship of the school authorities, and with regard to our work in this field we hope we may continue to have that cooperation and sponsorship.
With regard to the other question, as to the methods used for the recruiting of the cadet corps, I can only say that this is not a matter which falls within the scope of the work of this department. It is done by the cadet corps themselves. In some cadet corps and some schools it is completely voluntary. In some schools there is a certain element which may regard it as the thing to do in the school, and there may be other situations. But as far as our department is concerned we have nothing whatever to do with the recruitment. When
the cadets are recruited we pay the per capita amount of $1 for senior cadets and, up to now, fifty cents for junior cadets. We pay $2 for each member of the band, and give assistance in the way of contributions toward1 the expenses of uniforms, camps and so on. So far it has worked out well, and I hope it will work out well in the future.


Denton Massey: Has the minister in contemplation an organization such as the army league, which would be analogous to the navy league or the air cadet league?


Brooke Claxton: That has never been
suggested so far as I know. In my discussions of the subject recently, I never heard it suggested. As I said this afternoon, and as the hon. member knows, the army cadets have been carried on through two sets of cadet corps, one of which is sponsored by units and the other which is in the schools. So far it has worked out well, and there is no suggestion that any other agency should be introduced.


Denton Massey: I was not suggesting it.
I just wondered if the minister had it in contemplation.


Brooke Claxton: I never heard the suggestion made.


Denton Massey: Realizing that the hon.
member for Nanaimo has withdrawn his amendment, I would say to the minister just two things. One is that I feel keenly that there is a latent danger in section 19, for the reasons I endeavoured to point out this afternoon, reasons which the minister well knows are not directed against him or his present office.
Second, I hope the minister will give further consideration to the possibility of having cadet corps in at least some of the primary schools. It may be that there are local deterrent factors in some areas across Canada which would make enrolment of young boys in cadet corps undesirable. On the other hand, likewise and conversely there are schools where such enrolment is desirable. Before any sweeping decision is made, I suggest to the minister that an analysis be made of some centres where this might be possible, rather than having one sweeping order.


Thomas Langton Church: Under section 60 of the
old Militia Act the commanding officer of a district was in charge of cadet instruction. He delegated his responsibilities to boards of education across the country. The general officer commanding No. 2 military district, which takes in Hamilton, Niagara and Toronto areas, and from which a large number of
Militia Act

cadets come, would appoint officers within the jurisdiction of the various school boards, and those boards would have absolute control over the school cadet system.
At this stage I object to the minister's changing all that, and substituting for it central authority here in Ottawa under some officers nominated by the minister. It can be made a huge machine of political propaganda. I must voice my objections strongly, coming as I do from Ontario, a province from which the greater portion of the cadets have been drawn for years. That is the old province which did so well in all the wars, from the Fenian raids to the northwest rebellion and the South African war, followed by the two great wars of our generation. The cadet system in our country was good enough for those times.
I do not think it is fair for the minister to take this stand, although he is a good man and was a good soldier. Unfortunately we have no minister from the Toronto district, nor have we had one since 1935. Surely this is highly dangerous to provincial rights and property and civil rights in the provinces. Here we find the head of a department, who comes from a sister province, upsetting everything that has been done in our province. I say, "hands off the schools in our province." Our educational system is adequate for our province, and it has always had a cadet system which was one of the best in the whole country, and did its duty in two long wars.
I was member of a school board for some time, and I have discussed this matter with school principals. I say it is not proper to have one cadet system in the schools, and another system outside the schools, cadets spending time from their studies at night, and to have drilling two nights a week by some officer appointed by the minister. I can tell you this, that you are upsetting the whole system. If I were the only member in the House of Commons from my province, I would still say that in that province we have had a cadet system which has produced results.
A survey of the public and separate schools, and also the secondary schools in Ontario would show that in two wars there have been large numbers of enlistments from those schools. I have before me a report showing that at one of the annual commencements of one of the secondary schools in my district there were about 2,000 enlistments in the last war. Nearly 500 from those schools were killed in the war just passed. But to change the whole cadet system, and have it done 
down here at Ottawa, is all wrong, and I protest against it. I do so in the name of the people whom I have the honour to represent.
I have discussed this matter with school principals on several occasions. We have two representatives from the separate schools on the board of education in our city, who had no information whatever about the change, and this subject of cadet training was discussed last Thursday evening by the board. It is known that cadet officers give their time free of charge after school hours. Some of them give physical drill, while others coach football, hockey and other sports, and cadet work after school.
Cadets from Oakwood collegiate, Riverdale collegiate and Malvern collegiate have won rifle-shooting matches conducted by the militia. Any change in the present system would be grossly unfair to the school boards, municipalities in Ontario. The minister, who represents the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George should not come into Ontario and say that he is going to upset the whole thing and run the national cadet system from Ottawa. I do not say he would do so intentionally, or anything like that. But it is stated clearly in the bill1 that the minister has authority to nominate someone in Ottawa to take charge of the cadets for him.
I realize that some of my hon. friends to my left do not believe in cadets any more than they believe in war. They believe in peace pacts, and all that sort of thing. But they have been proven to be wrong. Since confed1-eration the backbone of the Militia Act has been the boards of education and the cadet corps of public schools, high schools and vocational schools. It was a cheap way', without much expense to the government to have this done, because the local boards provided uniforms and other essentials. They used to have wooden rifles for drill purposes in the public schools, and the chief drill officers contributed a great- deal to the welfare of the corps.
I wish to protest against this gross invasion of provincial rights. Here we have two systems, one of which has been in the schools since 1877, and the other of which is to be outside, taking up the time of cadets from their studies at night. I tell- you this, that what the government suggests here is a waste of public money.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one point I should like to emphasize. I have heard several views expressed this afternoon and this evening. My personal experience is that fourteen y'ears of age is young enough for a lad to be enrolled in a regular cadet corps. If a lad

Militia Act
is taken under fourteen years, and goes to camp for a period in the summer for purposes of training, he is of no use at all. He is homesick, he is too young, and he has to be watched everj' minute. It has been generally found that fourteen years is young enough, and I approve the age limit of fourteen to eighteen years. I think the minister knows that, as far as the navy league and the sea cadet movements are concerned, that was felt to be the case months ago.


Mr. McIVOR:: All this talk about cadet training seems to be too much one-sided. There seems to be everything for the boys and nothing for the girls. It is well known that the girls in the nursing profession and in other occupations covered themselves with glory during the last war. Girls are just as' proud of their physical fitness as the boys and they rise to as great heights as is shown by the fine young girl from the city of Ottawa.


Mr. TIMMINS:: Every hon. member who has spoken during the last ten minutes has said that there is just one point to be cleared up, and the same holds true with me. I am concerned with the concentrated authority which is vested in the minister by the new sections 60 and 61. Under the new section 60, he will have the authority to appoint the officer to command, and under the new section 61, he has the authority to control and train cadets. That is pretty plenary authority to place in the minister, and as far as I am concerned it is too plenary an authority.
The cadet system is the real bulwark of our militia, but we do not train cadets simply to be soldiers of the future. We try to train them in the arts of citizenship. We all know that young men properly trained in the cadet system become fine citizens. It was my privilege to be at Niagara camp in July, 1914, just before world war I. There were with me quite a number of cadets from the part of the country from which I come, and after that time most of those young men joined up in the armed forces. As a matter of fact you could not find more than six young men in the district of Parkdale who were not in the armed forces in one way or another. Their training as cadets had built up character, leadership, the ability to take orders, respect for constituted authority and respect for Canadian citizenship.
There have been in this house hon. members who attained positions of prominence but who did not have the same regard for the cadet training system that we who sit on this side have. The minister straightened out a lot of thoughts in the minds of hon. members on this
side with his statement late this afternoon. However, the day may come when we may have somebody sitting in his place who has not the same regard for the cadet system as we on this side have and as apparently he has. Things may be done in a slothful manner and we cannot tolerate that type of leadership in the cadet system. Without proper leadership we are going to have inefficiency and the cadet system is likely to fall into disgrace or contempt among the youth of the country. If that should happen we shall have dealt a sorry blow to the citizenry of this country and to our future progress.
Had the hon. members for Nanaimo not withdrawn his amendment, I was going to move an amendment to the new sections 60 and 61 and ask that the word "minister" be struck out in both sections and that the words "governor in council" be substituted therefor. I feel that this is something that strikes at the very heart of the future of this country and of the young men whom we are setting up to lead. I am not going to move that amendment, but I suggest to the minister that he consider whether too much authority is not being concentrated in himself under these sections and whether it should not fall upon the governor in council.
I think that way of handling the matter would be the best way of dealing with the problems that come up in connection with cadet training. I should like him to explain his remark that the system would be turned upside down if the work of the department were carried on by the governor in council instead of by himself as minister.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Is there an officer who is charged with the training of cadets and, if so, who is he?


Brooke Claxton: There is not at army headquarters an officer in charge of cadets, but there is an officer, Colonel Bingham, in charge of cadet training. There are similar officers with respect to the navy and air force cadets. They are not in charge of the cadets since previously cadets came under the ordinary command of the district officers commanding and now they will come under the command of the general officers commanding; that is, if this bill passes.


René Hamel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the honourable the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) or his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Lapointe) if the use of the French language is accepted for the training and inspection of cadets.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, undoubtedly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Militia Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 20-Regulations for calling out Canadian army.
(Text):
Thomas Langton Church: This section gives the governor in council the power to say when the Canadian army may be called out for any military purpose other than drill or training. There are certain sections of the criminal code which would have to be read into this. Under the old Militia Act and the criminal code, a mayor, warden or sheriff could ask the commanding officer of the district for military aid to support the civil police in case of strike or riot. When some of the troops came home after the last war they complained because all the licences had been given to foreign born people who had never served a day in the forces and there was a serious state of affairs for three or four days, and a riot accordingly. It was not necessary to ask for the aid of the militia, but the mayor and the warden and the sheriff had the power to summon them.
In the case of the strike at Hamilton, a number of troops were called into the district. Power is now being given under section 20 to the minister and to the governor in council alone to do this. The governor in council may be on holidays, as he frequently is, for three or four months in the year and, if application for aid were made, aid would not be available. They called out the soldiers to clean snow along the tracks of the railroads during the bad storm in the first year of the war. They were used for many other purposes for which they should not have been used, and got $1.30 a day, and for snow cleaning they got $4.85 or $3.85 or whatever it was and Ottawa refused to let soldiers get the extra pay. Was that the right way to use a civilian army? Are these men no longer citizens of Canada when they don the king's uniform? What right have we to take away from soldiers their rights and privileges as citizens? Ottawa never knows what the rest of the country is thinking. You have to go back to the constituencies to find out what the people are really thinking. This section gives altogether too much power to the governor in council, and it is not in the interests of the Canadian army and the defence of this country.
Britain made leases of Atlantic bases, with the United States leasing for ninety-nine years naval bases all the way from Newfoundland to British Guiana. Those leases should now be cancelled and charged up to lease-lend. The action was taken to protect American shores in the Battle of the Atlantic, but the leases should now be cancelled.

Two of the greatest wars were fought without the governor in council being given such tremendous powers as are sought by this bill. They would enable the governor in council to make a political football of militia and defence in this country.


Brooke Claxton: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. gentleman to go without paying him the courtesy of a r'eply. Section 63 of the Militia Act was used in 1939, when, in apprehension of war, some of the non-permanent active militia and other forces of Canada were called out on active service on August 26 of that year. This was the way by which that was done. Had it not been for this clause, it would not have been possible to get on with the job legally which the hon. member himself would have been the first to ask us to do at that time. It is necessary that a government have power to face an emergency of that kind, and it was done under this clause, which enabled us to place the forces of Canada in a state of readiness to meet whatever might happen. There is absolutely no change made by this amendment in the section as it was before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Army Act applicable to Canadian army.
Percy Ellis Wright: There are two points to which I raise objection under this clause. It repeals section 69 of the old act, which reads:
The Army Act for the time being in force in Great Britain, the king's regulations, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this act or the regulations made hereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia . . .
-except in cases where it contravenes certain regulations of our own Militia Act.
It seems to me that we in Canada should have an army act of our own to govern our own army. But this amendment does not do that. I am not a constitutional lawyer or a lawyer of any kind, but it seems to me that all it does is to transfer to the governor in council the power of amending the Army Act of Great Britain as it applies to our Canadian army. That seems to me a poor way to build up an army act of our own. This parliament should have its own army act to govern our Canadian army. It should not be done by order in council, by the governor in council. The minister should certainly give some explanation of this section. I know that during the war there was a good deal of controversy because of the British act governing our Cana-

Militia Act
dian army in matters of discipline. Very often our Canadian soldiers did not know their rights in matters of discipline because those rights had to be traced back to the British act rather than to a Canadian act, and a soldier had to be a pretty good lawyer to know what his rights were under the various acts which governed discipline in the Canadian army. It is time that we clarified the whole matter and had an army act for Canada passed by this parliament and not built up by order in council as it well may be under this amendment.


Brooke Claxton: I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. member, and, as I pointed out earlier, we have under preparation an army act for Canada to take the place completely of the Army Act as it is now made applicable to us, just as was done in the case of the Naval Service Act which was passed in 1944. We hope to have the act ready for presentation to the house at the next session of parliament. It requires a good deal of study and it has not been possible to make it available to hon. members for their consideration at this session. In the meantime, it was thought it would be more fitting to do these things in consequence of the action of our own government rather than through an act of the British parliament applied automatically to our Canadian army. So we propose that the old section 69 should be changed to its present form. We intend to change the whole situation just as soon as it is possible.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is it the intention to have an army act brought in annually?


Brooke Claxton: Consideration has been given to that and will be given, as I mentioned the other evening, when the question of a ceiling on our armed forces came up.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 24-Courts of inquiry.
John George Diefenbaker: I rise for the purpose of asking the minister why it is that he is asking for so many powers to make regulations. So far as this rewriting of the Militia Act is concerned, it seems to consist in placing under the governor in council the widest possible powers to make regulations, and it is certainly indicative of the power complex of this government. As I look over this bill I find that practically every section gives the governor in council power to make regulations, and if I read the bill correctly most of these regulations do not even have to be laid on the table of parliament. There is a provision a little later on with regard to
laying regulations on the table of parliament, but here again the minister is made allpowerful because, under the proposed new section 140, the governor in council can simply certify that publication might endanger the safety of the state or convey secret or confidential information to a foreign power, in which case the governor in council can make applicable to the army laws which in no way would be known to anyone but the governor in council. This bill goes much farther than any other bill which has been brought before the house. A mass of comprehensive powers has been granted to the governor in council to make regulations.
Some years ago this matter came up before the British parliament, and I hold in my hand a summary of the recommendations which were made under which the king in council might pass regulations which would become the law of the land without anybody knowing anything about them. The committee report to which I refer is that of the. Lord Sankey committee which convened in 1929. It was pointed out that certain powers must be vested in the king in council; but with a view to exercising some control over the absolutism of the king in council the committee recommended that, whenever a regulation or order was passed, certain things should be done. First, it should be laid on the table of parliament; second, with a view to controlling the multiplicity of regulations which are being passed by governments today, not only should all the regulations passed be laid on the table of parliament, but there should be a permanent committee of the house set up to examine them. That recommendation of the Sankey committee has been more or less accepted by the British House of Commons.
I suggested that the time has come to call a halt to the relentless march of this government toward government of the country by the governor in council or by the minister. We cannot stop it because we have not the power in parliament to do so, even though parliament is starting to regain some of its powers since hon. members are beginning to exercise their independence, something that was foreign to parliament within the period of war. I suggest that something should be done toward setting up a nermanent standing committee of parliament, to which all regulations and all orders in council should be submitted. That committee would have no power to change the substantive regulations which are made; but it would have the power to place 'before members of parliament, who do not have the opportunity of studying these
Militia Act

orders in council and regulations, something of what has been done under order in council or by regulation.
As I understand the situation in Britain, what they do is this: the House of Commons submits these regulations to a committee. The committee reports on the regulations placed before it; first, as to whether any matter of principle is involved; second, whether any regulations or rule imposes a tax; third, whether a regulation or rule is challenged either permanently or never challengeable; fourth, whether is consists wholly or partly of consolidation; fifth, whether there is any special feature of the regulation or rule meriting the attention of the house; sixth, whether there were any circumstances connected with the work of the regulation or rule meriting such attention; seventh, whether the regulation or rule should be starred. By starring, I simply mean whether it should be brought to the attention of the house and the country so that the house and the countiy will appreciate what is being done.
During the last few days I have had occasion to run through the series of orders in council which will be attached to the omnibus bill. These orders in council and regulations were in effect during the period of the war. I have endeavoured to follow somewhat carefully the orders in council so passed. Many of these orders in council I had no idea of at all. Many of them took away the right of recourse to the courts; others denied the liberty of the individual. Still others gave to the minister the power of arbitrary decision in favour of one person, while denying another person the benefit of the principle of equality under the law. Today we are passing a bill which allows the governor in council absolute powers, concentrates in his person power in reference to the armed forces of this country the like of which no minister has ever before exercised. If we pass it and give the power we shall have no realization whatever of the power we are granting.
Is the minister in a position to tell the committee just why it is so necessary for the governor in council and himself to have the powers for which he is asking at this time? In reply to the hon. member for Melfort a moment ago, the minister said that, so far as section 69 was concerned, it was necessary to pass it in the form in which it was before it has been passed upon by the house because it would take time to sort out the king's regulations and orders or those applicable to the army in the United Kingdom. Well, we have got along for a long time under these regulations, and if the government is to introduce a measure to change these things,
[Mr. Diefenbaker.3
why does it do so in this haphazard manner? For the life of me, I cannot understand it. The other day I asked the minister how many regulations had been passed and he said that thousands of them had been passed. Then I asked him for particulars because under the act it is necessary to place them before parliament or at least to have them printed in the Canada Gazette. When I asked him whether or not these regulations appeared in the Canada Gazette his answer was, "Of course, not the thousands but some of them."


Brooke Claxton: That was not the answer at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the answer
here. It will be found at page 423 of Hansard. I asked this question:
How many regulations were passed under the Militia Act in 4946?
The minister replied as follows:
We would have to look that up, hut there might be several thousand if everything is included. We are not sticking to Mr. Chairman's ruling, but in our discussions we are anticipating the various provisions in the bill.
A little later on, I asked this question:
Bid the minister say that there were seven thousand?
Mr. Claxton: No, several thousand.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing whatever was
said to imply that the law had not been completely complied with, as in fact it was.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear my hon. friend.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member implied in his remark that I said at the time that the law had not been properly complied with. Nothing I said gave'that implication.


John George Diefenbaker: There was not
any implication; it was a statement of fact because the minister said that there were several thousand regulations. Then, when I asked him whether these thousands of regulations were published in the Canada Gazette his answer was no. I asked him how many were published and he said he did not know. Possibly he has the information now, but, as the law stands at the present time, all regulations are required to be published in the Canada Gazette.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member were fair he would admit that a full reading of the discussion indicates that right through we had been talking about two classes of things.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER; No.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.

Militia Act


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is talking about the right to issue regulations outside of parliament and I am talking about the necessity of having regulations issued with the authority and the knowledge of parliament. This is what section 140 says:
Such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and upon being so published they shall have the same force in law as if they formed part of this act.
This is what section 139 says:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying this act into effect, for the organization, discipline, efficiency and good government generally of the militia, and for anything requiring to be done in connection with the military defence of Canada.
In other words, as the law stands at present, these regulations should be published in the Canada Gazette.


Brooke Claxton: All that were required to be published were published.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that there were several thousand and I would ask him now whether he is in a position to say how many thousand regulations were passed and how many found their way into the Canada Gazette, because he is challenging the correctness of my statement.


Brooke Claxton: I would call the attention of the committee to the clause we are discussing, namely, section 24. That is the one we have reached and it would ask that there be substituted for section 93 of the Militia Act, as it has stood since 1868, a provision reading:
The governor in council may make regulations for the convening of courts of inquiry and the composition thereof for the purpose of investigating and reporting on any matter connected with the government or discipline of the Canadian army or with the conduct of any officer or man thereof.
And then subsection 2:
The governor in council may make regulations for the convening of courts-martial and the jurisdiction and composition thereof for the purpose of trying any officer or man of the Canadian army for any offence under this act or for the purpose of trying any other persons punishable under this act.
Let us contrast what we want to introduce with what there was before and see on what thin and narrow grounds this harangue of the hon. member opposite has been based. Section 93, as it stood, reads:
The governor in council may convene courts of inquiry and appoint officers of the militia to constitute such courts, for the purpose of investigating and reporting on any matter connected with the government or discipline of the militia, or with the conduct of any officer or man of the force; and may, at any time, convene courts-martial and delegate power to convene 83166-33
such courts, and to appoint officers to constitute them, for the purpose of trying any officer or man of the militia for any offence under this act, and may also delegate power to approve, confirm, mitigate or remit any sentence of any such court.
Neither in that clause nor in any other clause in this bill do you find any increase in the power of the governor in council. There is no increase whatever. If there is, I should like to hear about it and I would consider it. But I have gone over it and have not found one instance.


John George Diefenbaker: Then what is the purpose of the amendment?


Brooke Claxton: The purpose of the
amendment is to enable the governor in council to make regulations so that the governor in council shall not have to do this job every time and so give my hon. friend an opportunity for making his attacks upon it for passing too many orders in council. These attacks really have gone on too long.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the reason for the objection.


Brooke Claxton: I venture to say that in no country on earth has less power been given to ministers and to the officers concerned with the administration of military affairs than in Canada. Power has almost all reposed either in parliament or in the governor in council, and for that reason the governor in council has been forced to pass this great number, indeed thousands, of orders of which my hon. friend subsequently complains. If he were in England or in the United States he would not find any such number of orders in council. Why? Because it is done by others inferior to the body corresponding to the governor in council. That is so in every case. It is extraordinary that this stuff should go on, because we have here in Canada, due to the fact that so many matters are required to be done by governor in council, the complaint that it is undemocratic. ' But in England, in the United States, in Australia and New Zealand, in all the democracies, my hon. friend will not find that the powers here exercised by the governor in council with regard to military matters are exorcised by parliament. He will find that they are exercised by some military officer or by a minister, in every single case of which I know anything.
This complaint about government by order in council should be made on the other score; that is, on the score that the governor in council is now required under our law to do too much and that responsibility is therefore removed from the persons who should be responsible in these and other cases; in many

Militia Act

instances the minister and in other instances the officers of the armed forces or of the responsible department concerned.
My hon. friend referred to the discussion we had last week about regulations, when he asked how many regulations had been adopted under the Militia Act in 1946, and some other hon. member inquired about 1938. I did not know the number and I do not think it was surprising that I did not.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not a bit surprising.


Brooke Claxton: No, but I now have the regulations here. They are in these bound volumes which were duly laid on the table of the house. They have been published in the Canada Gazette and the law has been completely complied with regarding them.
With regard to 1938, to answer that question, since this is the first opportunity I have had, there were 333 orders and regulations made pursuant to the powers vested in the governor in council or the Minister of National Defence by the Militia Act. Of these, two-thirds were made by the governor in council and one-third by the minister. Twenty-six of the orders to amend king's regulations, Canada, were made by the governor in council. During 1946 there 'were 985 orders and regulations made pursuant to the powers vested in the governor in council or the Minister of National Defence by the Militia Act. Of these, about half were made by the governor in council and about half by the minister pursuant to the powers vested in him by the act and by order in council P.C. 44/3723, dated May 4, 1942. By this order the governor in council, under powers conferred, delegated to the minister powei to amend establishments within ten per cent limits. Had it not been for this order, most of the orders made by the minister during 1946 would have had to be made by the governor in council. Of the orders made by the governor in council in 1946, 28 amended K.R. (Can.). In addition to those which deal with establishments, the strength of forces, the provision of supplies and so on, many huu dreds of orders were made by the governo* m council during 1946 on the submission of the Minister of National Defence, dealing with the following matters: the grant of pensions and gratuities to retiring members of the permanent force, pursuant to the provisions of the Militia Pension Act. I ask the hon. member: does he think that should be done by parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: After the minister has finished answering the question, I will answer him.


Brooke Claxton: He does not answer that. I do not think- it should be done by the governor in council either. I believe the amount of a pension awarded a man who has served his term should not need approval by order in council.
Then, second: the approval of leases, contracts and other agreements entered into by the department; third, the approval of settlement of all claims in excess of $200 made against the department. During the war years there were hundreds of orders of this kind, which I submit should never have had to be dealt with by the governor in council. They should have been dealt with by somebody in virtue of powers delegated by parliament or the governor in council. In 1945 there were no less than five thousand orders in this category, and in 1944 there were approximately six thousand orders.


John George Diefenbaker: How many in 1946?


Brooke Claxton: In 1946 there were 985. If my hon. friend looks through these orders relative to the armed forces of Canada he will see that first they come out as general orders, published in the Canada Gazette, and then are laid on the table of the house. Let me read the list of the orders in one issue, Tanuary 28, 1944: "Financial regulations and instructions for the Canadian active service force; amendments. Financial regulations and instructions for the Canadian active service force; amendments. Officers, maximum ages for holding appointments and for retirements. Conversion and redesignation, active units," and so on. They deal with matters affecting the administration of the armed forces, matters which certainly should be dealt with, not by parliament, but by the governor in council; or, in cases where no question of policy is involved, where it is merely the application of a routine order or dealing with a situation that has to be dealt with without any question of principle involved, then it should be dealt with by the minister or by someone delegated by the minister.
That is the way it is done in England; that is the way it is done in the United States. The reason my hon. friend has been able to make so much of this plea of -his that there -has been government by order in council in Canada is that the governor in council has done things which in other countries would be done by subordinate officials or bodies. That accounts for a very large proportion of the orders to which he has referred. Take these other things; take the approval of an appointment, promotion or retirement. Under our practice that is recommended to the governor in council by the minister. It be-

Militia Act
comes part of a long order. It is printed in the Canada Gazette. It is laid on the table of the house. These are all good and adequate safeguards; but to suggest that it should be done by any other process involving an application to parliament is to ignore totally the proper functions of parliament, of the executive and of the administration.
I am sorry to have delayed the committee on this matter, Mr. Chairman, but here it is a question whether the governor in council shall convene courts of inquiry or make regulations under which courts of inquiry shall be convened. That is the point. I submit that in this year 1947 the governor in council should be too busy to convene courts of inquiry and that this should be done as it has been done, in fact; that is. by the convening of courts of inquiry under regulations. That is all this and the other changes mean, that we are trying to get a machinery which is workable and sensible and responsible, where the whole operation is not related to the horse and buggy days when we had a totally different set-up in Canada, a machinery under which we shall be able to carry on government as efficiently and as responsibly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: The explanation by the minister is the position commonly taken by those who have not an answer. I asked the minister why he found it so necessary to ask at this time for the power to make regulations when, over the years, that power had not rested in the minister or the governor in council?


Brooke Claxton: It always has.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why the
amendment? That was my question a while ago. Of course the minister found it necessary to deal with everything but what I dealt with. I asked him the question, recognizing the need for regulations on occasion, whether or not consideration would be given by the government to following the British system, whereby regulations and orders in council are available to a committee of the House of Commons for investigating, consideration and recommendation. To that suggestion the minister made no reference at all. When he talks about this not being an order in council government and becomes very much annoyed when I suggest that it is, let us look at the record for a moment. The question I asked the other day was, how many regulations or orders in council were passed in 1946? The answer by the responsible minister was, "Several thousand". I asked him whether he said "Seven thousand" and he said, "Several thousand". Now he says the total is 985.
83166-33i
The minister says that this is not an order in council government. Well, let us look at the record. Between 1914 and 1917, three years of war, the total number of orders in council passed in this country, according to an answer given in the house at that time, was some 790 odd, and I speak from memory. During a similar period of this war, when parliament was circumvented on every possible occasion by the government, over 85,000 orders in council were passed. The number for the period of the war was approximately 90,000, and this government has not yet learned that the war is over, because orders in council are still pouring out in numbers far and beyond anything they could possibly defend. And here we are in 1947 with a bill before parliament for the purpose of ratifying and making part of the law of the land a whole raft of orders in council which have never been read by most members of parliament, if by any; which deny the right of recourse to the courts, which permit of discrimination as between individual and individual, which allow the minister power to say to one person, "This is your right", and to the other person, "You have no such right", and denies the person discriminated against the right of recourse to the courts.
The minister in this instance asks for power to make himself the absolute ruler of the armed forces of this country. This afternoon the hon. member for Greenwood made a most reasoned appeal, and pointed out that the minister will make himself all-powerful and absolute-. Every one of the sections passed here this evening, and those which will follow, seem designed to do one thing, namely, to place in the hand of this minister power which no other minister in a government has ever asked to have placed in him. He has absolute power to do the different things set out in the sections which have already been passed, and to which I shall not refer.
But when one suggests that some curb be put on this absolute power, on this power complex, the answer one receives is that it is not a serious matter. I think he called it "stuff". "Stuff"?-yes; this attitude on the part of the government, in circumventing parliament and short-circuiting parliament by allowing the council chamber to be the -place where laws are made, is the stuff of which autocracy is made.
That is the reason I rise at this time. I started out to ask my hon, friend a- simple question. Would he, as a democrat, be prepared to consider the setting up of a standing committee of parliament, so that many of these things which must necessarily be passed by regulation could be made known to the country, and members of the House of Com-
Militia Act

mons could be made aware of their contents, to the end that unfairness shall not be permitted to creep into the law of this country by the back-door method of orders in council? I still ask him that. He defends what is done; he cannot do anything else. This government stands indicted as a government which has ruled by decree, and is still trying to rule by decree.
With parliament today to some extent regaining its lost prerogatives, prerogatives which it lost during the period of the war- and it started back in 1914, so that parliament has gradually been receding-will the minister not at least give some consideration to placing this parliament in the same position that is enjoyed today by the British parliament, namely, that of giving it the opportunity to consider through a committee these orders, so as to prevent discrimination, to assure that justice shall be done and equality under the law maintained?
That was the only reason for my question originally, and I do not see why there should have been such heat. But, sir, the reason for the heat is that, though in the past my hon. friend has talked against orders in council, he realizes that today the government with which he is associated has now denied to parliament in too many instances its sovereign right either to pass legislation or, if it delegates the power to pass legislation, then to have the right to review it.
I ask the minister once more if he will give consideration to putting into effect what has been found necessary in Great Britain, namely, a standing committee, to the end that these matters may be examined so as to ensure fairness and equality.


Brooke Claxton: I must reply again to the hon. member, although I thought I had answered him fully. These general orders for the years 1944, 1945 and 1946 were laid before him and other hon. members, placed on the table of the house, in accordance with the law, at the first session of parliament after they were passed. Furthermore, they were published in the Canada Gazette as they came out. They were passed in accordance with the law. I do not see what cause for complaint he has, when he did nothing about the matter except make the kind of speech he makes tonight.
So far as I know, there has been no motion -and any hon. member may make such a motion-to have an order brought before the house. But there has been nothing of that kind. I have not heard from my predecessors any complaint as to what has been done. Whatever was done was done in accordance

with the law as laid down by parliament; and it has been done in that way because there was no simpler way to do it.
Let me just ask the hon. member who he thinks should pass the laws regarding the matters I shall set out. Who does he think, and who do hon. members in the committee think should deal with these questions: (1) adding one pistol or one rifle or one round of pistol or rifle ammunition to the establishment of an infantry battalion to meet operational needs; or (2) adding one cook to the establishment of a training centre to take ca,re of varying recruit intake; or (3) changing the name or establishment title of a "headquarters transport company" to a "corps headquarters transport company"; or (4) changing the title of an artillery regiment from towed guns to self-propelled guns; or (5) providing an additional pigeon loft as a unit of the army for operational use in a theatre of war?
Under the existing law, dating from 1868, all these matters have to be done by orders in council; and that is why we have so many order's in council.
I ask my hon. friend this question; Does he think they should be done by parliament? Or does he think they should be done by the armed forces? Or does he think it is better that we should continue the system we have inherited from the British constitutional system, namely, that of making the minister and the government responsible?


John George Diefenbaker: I just want the minister to answer a question. I am not interested in pigeons in the loft. What I am interested in is in finding out the answer the minister will give to the question whether or not a standing committee should be set up. Will the minister answer that question?


Mr. WARREN:: You answer his.


John George Diefenbaker: If I could not answer a question any better than my hon. friend has shown his ability to answer them, I certainly would object to being questioned. But I come back to my question, not to be driven aside by these trivial matters mentioned by the minister. Apparently he has given considerable study to such trivialities, or he would not have them at his finger-tips. But I want the full picture. He has shown unusual ability in setting out these five examples. My question is this: In order to restore to parliament the right of parliament either to legislate or, in the case of delegated legislation, to review what has been done, will he give consideration to the setting up of a committee, to the end that these matters may be submitted to such a committee as they are today in the United Kingdom? That

Militia Act
is a simple question. If he will not, all he has to do is to say he will not; if he will, then at least we shall know the government realizes it has gone too far along the road of order in council government and is prepared in the interests of parliament to assure the right of members of parliament to have before them orders in council that are passed, not the trivial matters referred to by my hon. friend.


Brooke Claxton: I have a pile eight or
nine inches thick of orders in council that were passed and that were laid before parliament after having been printed in the Canada Gazette. There was no complaint about them.


Mr. COCKERAM:: In reply to the hon.
member for Lake Centre, the minister stated that no additional powers were being granted to the governor in council under this bill. Subsection 3 of the section we are discussing states:
The governor in council shall approve, confirm, mitigate, or remit sentences of all courts-martial and may direct that the record of a conviction by a court-martial be removed and the accused relieved from all consequences of his trial.
That is not in the present act. Can the minister explain that?


Brooke Claxton: Does the hon. gentleman object to that provision?


Alan Cockeram: The minister said that no additional powers were being given, and here is one right in the section we are discussing.


Brooke Claxton: I am advised that, under the law as it stands, failure to confirm has exactly the same effect. There is no additional power.


Alan Cockeram: I am not talking about failure to confirm. This section reads:
. . . and may direct that the record of a conviction by a court-martial be removed.
There may be a reason for putting that in and I should like the minister to tell us the reason.


Brooke Claxton: I think the last line of
section 93 explains it. This reads:
. . . and may also delegate power to approve, confirm, mitigate or remit any sentence of any such court.


Alan Cockeram: It does not say that
the accused shall be relieved from all consequences of his trial. I should like the minister to tell me why that section was put in. There must be a definite reason and I should like to have it.


Brooke Claxton: That power has been
exercised under the law as it stood under sections 93 and 99. There was that power,
but to make it perfectly clear to everyone it is now expressly stated. There is no change in the existing situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Refusal to furnish transport.
Mr. PROBE:: I rather hesitate to take up
the time of the committee because hon. members to my right have done such a good job of holding the fort while the twenty-nine members mentioned by the Globe and Mail were finding their way back to this house. The hon. member for Lake Centre was arguing against extending the authority of the governor in council, but all afternoon hon. members of his party were arguing that there should be a little more government in the case of the cadets. Of course he can be excused for not knowing because he was not in the committee at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. I was in the committee throughout the afternoon and ask that that remark by the hon. member for Regina City be withdrawn.


John Oliver Probe: I shall be happy to withdraw that remark. What the hon. member said about the need for power being put back into the hands of parliament would suggest that he was not in the committee this afternoon because all afternoon his colleagues were talking about the cadet corps that was to be governed not by governor in council or by parliament, but by the district officer commanding. They spent all afternoon in discussing that. Of course, when we hear it from the government side it is the autocracy of the Liberal government. When we hear it from the opposition side we are asked to admire the national discipline of the Conservative party. When we hear language of that kind applied to cadet training it makes me think of the youth movements of certain dictators whom we did our best to discourage in a proper way not so long ago. Some of us in this comer were also cadets; some of us were commissioned officers in the cadet corps. We trained cadets and so we can speak with authority on these matters. To argue all day long for the sake of holding the fort or to hold some sort of spotlight or other, I think is derogatory-


Denton Massey: I rise to a question of privilege. I am glad to hear the hon. member for Regina City say that we have caused him to think. That is something we have accomplished today. But he should not impute
Militia Act

motives to me and to others who have spoken this afternoon and I request that he withdraw that statement.


John Oliver Probe: At no time did I impute motives to the hon. member who has just taken his seat or to any other hon. member.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman-


John Oliver Probe: I rose-


Denton Massey: On a question of privilege-


John Oliver Probe: -to ask the minister a question.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for
Greenwood has the floor on a question of privilege.


Denton Massey: The hon. member for Regina City has said that those of us who spoke this afternoon spoke in order to hold some sort of fort. That is imputing motives. We were discussing the business of the house and we were not holding a fort as he has imputed to us.


John Oliver Probe: If the cap does not fit they will not have to wear it as far as I am concerned.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Regina City has stated definitely that he did not intend to impute motives to the hon. member for Greenwood.


Denton Massey: Let him withdraw the remark.


John Oliver Probe: I should like to ask a question with respect to section 105 which reads:
Every person who leaves Canada with any article of public clothing or other public or corps property in his possession, is guilty of theft, and may be tried therefor at any time.
I know it is the intention of the minister to make temporary changes in the Militia Act until such time as the Department of National Defence can give attention to overhauling the act. However, I think he could have suggested the deletion of this particular section, because every person who was in the armed services in the last war or the war before and who left Canada was guilty of an offence under section 105, because all of us in overseas service left with some article of public clothing. It seems to me that the minister or his advisers have been remiss in not abolishing that section.


Brooke Claxton: I must say that I am thoroughly in accord with the hon. member. I do not know what we can do about the matter now.


John Oliver Probe: I would suggest that the minister move for the deletion of this clause.


Brooke Claxton: I cannot introduce that amendment now, but obviously what is meant here is that every person who leaves Canada with the intent to do this, would commit an offence in that or the other thing. We have made and we will make no prosecutions, and we will change the law in this regard when we come before parliament again.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On section 33-Publication.
Agar Rodney Adamson: This clause, which I can see some reason for, provides that matters which might convey information need not be published in the Canada Gazette, but at the same time these regulations will have the full force of law. Here we have a regulation dealing with something the publication of which might, in the opinion of the governor in council or the minister, prejudice the safety of the state. Here is a regulation that has the effect of law without publication. What steps are being taken to see that those affected know what the regulations are? As I see it, we have here an opportunity for great disorder and considerable confusion in that orders or regulations may be promulgated but not published. What steps are being taken to be sure that those affected know about them?


Brooke Claxton: Members of the armed forces and those in the service department who are handling material which may not be made available are required, in addition to taking the ordinary oath of office, to sign an acknowledgment of the receipt of an order indicating the degree of secrecy of the material with which they are dealing. That is brought to their attention.


Mr. BENTLEY:: This section enacts a new section 140 and 141. Under the old section, all regulations had to be published in the Canada Gazette, but under this amendment, if the governor in council considers that the publication of the regulations might endanger the safety of the state or convey secret or confidential information, they do not have to be published. If these regulations are to be kept out of the Canada Gazette provision should be made for making them known to parliament even if a secret session were necessary for the purpose. I am not moving an amendment, but I suggest to the minister that he add a subsection to 141 to the effect that all regulations not published in the Canada Gazette shall be laid before parliament in accordance with the previous subsection unless the governor in council considers that such might endanger the safety

Militia Act
of the state, in which case the regulation shall be laid before a secret session of parliament within ten days after its certification if parliament is then in session, or, if parliament is not in session, within ten days after the next ensuing session thereof. That is a suggestion which I think the minister should accept.


Brooke Claxton: May I tell the hon. member and the committee that I shall be very glad to consider that suggestion and bring it to the attention of the government. I should also like to discuss with him and any other members of the house who are similarly interested in this section this whole subject at some private session where we might meet informally.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This would seem to be the ideal place for a defence committee to review such regulations.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I agree that something along the line of what is proposed by this section is required but I believe that the minister is asking for more than is required. The section contains this phrase, "might endanger the safety of the state." That is an elastic phrase which may be interpreted to mean almost anything, and under that section, with that phrase remaining in it, it would be possible for a man or a group of men to be deprived of all their present rights under the Army Act. They might be deprived of their right to appear before the officer commanding within twenty-four hours of their arrest and every twenty-four hours thereafter until they came up for court-martial or other disposal of their case. A soldier might be held in prison for months without any right of being heard. I mention that just as an example. With that phrase left in the clause, the governor in council might pass any regulation it pleases which would completely deprive the soldier of the ordinary rights which are guaranteed him under the Army Act. I cannot conceive of any regulation which it would be against the interests of the state to publish other than those that are covered by the phrase "might convey secret or confidential information to a foreign power." I cannot conceive of anything else which would be required to be kept secret. Therefore I do not think the words "might endanger the safety of the state" are required, and so I move:
That section 33 be amended by striking out after the word "publication" in line 19 of the draft bill the words "might endanger the safety of the state or".
If that amendment- were adopted the clause would then read:
All regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette unless the governor in council certifies that such publication might convey secret or confidential information to a foreign power . . .
And so forth. I think that would still leave the government with all the powers they require, without the danger of that other phrase being used as a blanket authority to abrogate all the ordinary rights that a soldier is considered to have. We had a recent exmple of the abrogation of civil rights in the espionage investigation. That is a sufficient warning that some curb needs to be placed on the powers of government.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Is the committee ready for the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (j) - Minister.
Mr. MASSEY':	This paragraph was permitted to stand the other day. I raised an objection prior to the minister's full explanation of his position. Since his explanation of his position is satisfactory, I withdraw my obj ection.
Paragraph agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6, subsection 15-Period of service.
Brooke Claxton: When this subsection was called the other day there was a suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver South and supported by other hon. members that there should be a top and bottom limit for the period of enlistment. I have looked at the provisions of the Air Force Act, and it seems to me that it would be appropriate for us to copy the provisions in the Air Force Act which give an upper limit of five years and a lower limit of three years. If that would be acceptable to the committee I would ask my colleague to move the following amendment.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move:
That section 45 of the act as it appears in the said section 6 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"15. (1) Men may be enlisted for continuous service in the active force for such period as the governor in council may prescribe but not exceeding a period of five years and may be enlisted for service in the Canadian army other than for service in the active force for such period as the governor in council may prescribe but not exceeding a period of three years.
Militia Act

(2)	The term of service of any man which expires during an emergency shall be subject to extension with his consent until the emergency comes to an end and for not more than one year thereafter, and shall be subject to extension without his consent until the emergency comes to an end or for one year, whichever is the shorter period.
(3)	Notwithstanding anything in this section contained, a man who is enlisted in, or in anticipation of an emergency may be enlisted to serve for the duration of the emergency and the period of demobilization thereafter and required to serve in accordance with the terms of his engagement."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
John Oliver Probe: The minister has been good enough to explain to the committee that the bill we are passing at the present time is in effect a transitional bill. He also gave numerous statements during the course of the discussion on second reading and in committee. In connection with one of his statements on second reading, I rather regretted and so did other hon. members of this group, that he, by inadvertence or otherwise, neglected to indicate how the armed forces of this country might tie in with the international protective system to which this country is committed. He did, however, give the committee assurance that there would be drafted at an early day a more comprehensive bill in which the British Army Act would be adapted to Canadian uses. We had proposed to ask the committee to accept a preamble to this bill. I realize that the minister was good enough to say that he would accept suggestions from other comers of the house and was prepared to discuss them informally. Consequently I should like to put on record the suggested preamble that we of this group intended to move. It is as follows:
Whereas section 1 of article 43 of the charter of the united nations provides that " all members of the united nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the security council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security"; and
Whereas Canada, as a member of the united nations, has ratified said charter by decision of this parliament; and
Whereas it is expedient that Canada make adequate provision to fulfil its obligations under the charter when an agreement has been entered into under the section above-mentioned;
Therefore, for the purpose of so doing. His Majesty, with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons enacts as follows.
And so on. We in this group feel that such a preamble should precede the Militia Act, the Naval Service Act and the Air Force Aet,

since it is proposed to revise these acts at an early day and perhaps consolidate them into one statute. I do not know what the minister's intention is with respect to such a preamble, but I hope he will take into consideration seriously at that time a preamble indicating the more distant policy of the government, one to which we can adhere, as to the real purpose of having defence forces in this country.
Bill reported.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
Mr. GREEN:: Does the minister not intend to make a statement on the bill?
Mr. CLAXTON; We had a very full debate in the resolution stage and my hope was that we would get into committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


George Randolph Pearkes: When this bill was in the resolution stage we expressed general approval of the underlying principle, namely, that of consolidating the three fighting services under one minister. That is a policy which we have frequently advocated and we are heartily in agreement with it. Following further, we find that there is to be one deputy minister and there are to be three associate deputy ministers. I consider that we must ask the minister to give us a little more information regarding the duties of these three associate deputy ministers. One cannot help feeling, from the little information that we have at the present time, that a department which is headed by a minister and a deputy minister is rather top-heavy if it has three associate deputy ministers as well.
We were told during the resolution stage that one of these associate deputy ministers would look after finance and supply, that the second would look after personnel, but we did not have any information as to what the third associate deputy minister would do. I rather gathered that he would be an associate deputy minister at large, taking on such duties as might be assigned to him from time to time. I am heartily in accord with any steps that can be taken to unite the three services, letting them function with a common doctrine and working toward a common end, but we must

National Defence Act
safeguard the functions of the officers of the various forces and we must see to it that there is no overlapping or duplication.
I cannot help thinking that if you have certain senior officers in the three services charged with the responsibility of looking after personnel it should hardly be necessary to appoint an associate deputy minister to coordinate the work of those three senior officers. I hope therefore the minister will take the time to explain in greater detail the functions of these officials he is now appointing.
We agree with the formation of a research board, and the minister gave us information regarding the functions of that body. I wrant to throw out one possible suggestion having to do with the important matter of civil defence in war of today. During the last war, civil defence in Canada was under the department of the Secretary of State. I think I am correct in that statement. I suggest to the minister that civil defence is an integral part of the defence of the country, and in the event of hostilities breaking out at some future day civil1 defence might well receive the consideration of the Department of National Defence. I consider it wrong that it should be entirely separated from national defence and put under a separate department. I merely offer that as a suggestion for the minister's further consideration. I do not intend to debate it any further today, but I think it is something that might well be examined to see whether civil defence should not be brought under the Department of National Defence instead of being left to an entirely different department. I would therefore ask the minister now to explain in rather greater detail than he has so far given the functions of these deputy ministers and to assure us that there will be no duplication of effort and no overlapping of the legitimate duties of the officers of these departments.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's remarks. The effort, as he says, is to consolidate the three departments of defence, as they were and as they grew up during the war, into one department, and for that purpose it has been put forward in this bill that there should be a single deputy minister of defence and not more than three associate deputy ministers. As I told the house when the matter was under consideration last week, there are at present two associate deputy ministers. One has charge of finance, supply, equipment, and similar matters, and the other has charge of personnel and pay.
At the present time there is no intention of appointing a third, but in the course of S3166-34
developing the work of the department we may find that there is a natural division to which effect should be given and that we should have one associate deputy minister in charge of finance and administration, a second in charge of supply, equipment, engineering and so on, corresponding to the Q and M.G.O. branches of the army, and a third in charge of personnel and pay, corresponding to the A branch of the army. At the present time, however, we believe we have divided the work in a sensible way so that we can get along with two associate deputies. They are carrying on well, and we believe they will be able to carry on.
The hon. member asked whether there would be any duplication of work with the armed services. The committee appreciates that the armed services themselves have branches corresponding to administration, supply and personnel; but in the matters involving financial responsibility their submissions go through the civilian side of the department. Further, I should point out that in addition to the men in the armed forces, there is a considerable group of civilians who are working for the department. For example, there are not only the civil servants on the headquarters staff at Ottawa and elsewhere throughout Canada; large groups of prevailing rate employees are working at the various depots, dockyards and so on. That number totals something of the magnitude of twenty thousand at the present time, so that there is a full-time job for an associate deputy minister in charge of personnel and pay on the civilian side because of his purely civilian duties in addition to those he will have as the channel by means of which submissions from the armed forces with regard to many matters will reach the minister.
With regard to the final question on civil defence, I may tell the hon. member we have that in mind. During the war, civil defence was under the Department of National War Services, working in conjunction with other departments. Our thought is that in peace time we in the Department of National Defence should do planning, in conjunction with other departments, for example, health and welfare, and that we should be prepared, should any emergency arise, to deal with that very important question. The hon. member probably would also include in his definition of civil defence the combined subjects of research and industrial organization, and both those are being looked after as well. Only recently the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps Association was formed, as an association of men in the services and those in industry, who worked together so effectively in war to

National Defence Act

produce the great quantities of material that helped all the allied countries to achieve final victory. They have formed an association so that it might be a continuing and developing branch of our total preparation for any emergency that might arise. The president of the association is Mr. Victor Sifton of Winnipeg, who during the war was a distinguished master-general of the ordnance, though in a civilian capacity. He came there after having had a fine record in the first war, and he is taking on this work in connection with the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps Association which we regard as of the utmost importance.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Subsection 3 provides:
Each associate deputy minister of national defence shall have the rank and status of a deputy head of a department . . .
In reading that, I recall that last session the veterans affairs committee had to deal with a similar clause. At that time there were two deputy ministers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and one gentleman who had the administration of an important section of the department prior to last session was given the rank and status of a deputy minister. The committee discussed that matter at considerable length, and I think I am correct in saying that finally the committee agreed unanimously that in our opinion there should be only one deputy head of the department. In this case we actually have suggested three associate deputy ministers, each to be given the rank and status of deputy head of a department.
I should like to ask the minister two questions. In view of the action of the veterans affairs committee last session in dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs, does the minister not think this is a somewhat unfair and unnecessary situation? Then could he explain to the committee the policy of the government in granting the associate deputy ministers the rank and status of a deputy minister? I am afraid this section might be the cause of some friction and possibly some difficulty as between departments of this government.


Brooke Claxton: As the hon. member will see from subsection 3 of section 5, the associate deputy ministers are to hold that rank and status under the direction of the minister and the deputy minister. So that there is no doubt whatever about their 'being in an associate capacity rather than in an equal capacity. It was felt that, because we had had three departments and three people who at one time or another held the position of deputy

minister of one or other of those departments, we should continue, because of their distinguished record of service and their important positions in the new department, to give them the rank and status of a deputy minister.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said something about planning for the production of weapons. He did not go into any great detail on that subject. We all know it is of the utmost importance that the country should be able to produce these weapons of war. What is the present arrangement? Is the production of weapons, and are the preparations necessary so that we may be able to produce weapons, under the control of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply or under the Department of National Defence; and also, what is the connection between the work undertaken by the two different departments?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to questions of design, specifications and orders, these would come under the Department of National Defence. With regard to procurement, however, it would have come under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of the fact that the supply side of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is not likely to continue very much longer, we have under the most active consideration the development of a machinery of government under which there would be, first, planning; second, the development of specifications; third, the encouragement of development work; fourth, the development of people with required skills; and fifth, research in design. All these, of course, envisage a close cooperation between research and national defence and the procurement agency of the government selected to do the job. I must say it is not intended at the present time that procurement will be a function of the Department of National Defence. We envisage that being carried on permanently by some other agency of government, and the exact machinery is now being worked out.


Howard Charles Green: Some of those five functions the minister has mentioned come under the Department of National Defence. Under what department do other functions come?


Brooke Claxton: Design, development of specifications and the placing of orders come under the Department of National Defence. Then, if this bill passes, research will come under the defence research board, which will report through the Minister of National Defence. Procurement, however, will come under another branch of the government, and the details of that are now being worked out.

National Defence Act
Then I failed to mention another item, namely inspection. That also is receiving the most active consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Will that be under national defence?


Brooke Claxton: It will continue to be under the Department of National Defence in respect of questions of armament for the army, aircraft for the air force and ships for the navy, just as it always has been. But with regard to other materials, it probably will not come under the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that the government's policy is to depend upon private firms being prepared to manufacture weapons, and that there is to be some sort of cooperation with private firms. The minister mentioned procurement. I understand that at present that comes under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. But the other day the Prime Minister said that all the buying for the forces was to be done by a crown company known as Canadian Commercial Corporation, under the Department of Trade and Commerce. If all the buying is to be done by the Department of Trade and Commerce, does that not push the Department of Reconstruction and Supply out of the job of acting as procurement agency; and does it not also weaken your plan for being in a position to have weapons made effectively? After all, the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is interested in manufacturing, while the Department of Trade and Commerce is a buying and selling department. How does the minister purpose getting around that difficulty?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has referred to a matter I had touched upon, and that is that we were aiming to have procurement dealt with by the Department of Trade and Commerce, using the agency of a crown corporation, in that it will take over the functions of the Department of Munitions and Supply, as exercised during the war, and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply since the war. It will take over also many of the top personnel, so that there will be complete continuity. It is our hope that there will be no interruption whatsoever.
May I tell the hon. member that, so far as procurement is concerned, we are fairly well equipped with most weapons at the present time. We are not in the market for any large quantities of them. We are more concerned with keeping our ideas and our planning up to date, through intelligence work, cooperation with other governments, research 83166-34J
in our own country, and through cooperation with industry in our own country. We are now developing those lines of cooperation.


Howard Charles Green: But is not cooperation with industry the key factor in being in a position to have weapons made quickly and properly? The Department of Reconstruction and Supply has been in a first-class position to cooperate with industry. However, now that the minister is giving the work of procurement to the Department of Trade and Commerce, is he not losing a great deal of efficiency in connection with cooperation with industry? The Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned primarily with buying and selling. In fact the crown company to which the minister has referred is concerned with buying and selling abroad.
Would it not be far better for the Department of National Defence to set up some machinery of its own for cooperation with industry, rather than having to deal through another department, such as the Department of Trade and Commerce? I suggest to the minister we are far more likely to be in a position to get up-to-date weapons if the cooperation with industry is through the Department of National Defence, rather than through the Department of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister not agree with that?


Brooke Claxton: Actually, I believe we are going to have both, because the personnel in the Department of Reconstruction and1 Supply, who have had those contacts with industry, which the hon. member considers of considerable value, are to be transferred to the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the express purpose of maintaining the continuity to which he has referred. But in addition, in the Department of National Defence itself, we are continuing the close contact with industry that we have had. Out view is that that is well in hand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask a question along the lines of that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South. What will be the position of our arsenals at Valcartier and Lindsay? Prior to the war, the house was told that those arsenals were to be used for some development of our own. During the war a great many manufacturing establishments throughout Canada were used to develop and produce machines for the manufacture of munitions. At the time I understood that the cost of production of those machines was paid by this country. Are either the pilot machines or the machines made for and at the request of the government to be stored in our own arsenals for any possible future
National Defence Act

emergency, so that they can be used as samples by manufacturers to get back into production again.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has referred to the work done by Canadian Arsenals Limited during the war. That was a crown company which took over the work of the Canadian arsenals, as was carried on at Valcartier and Lindsay. This was greatly developed during the war and the work will be carried on. At the present time it is reporting through the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Whether or not it will continue to be carried on in that department, or in some other department, must yet be determined. There is no doubt, however, as to our carrying on that work, not only with regard to the production of any munitions of war which might be needed in peace time, but also with regard to the development of pilot plant and applied research.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had in mind one other matter along those lines. We had in Hamilton a large factory for the manufacture of guns. I am wondering if any of the equipment used to make the guns, which undoubtedly was paid for by the country, was stored in our arsenals, or if any sample machines were stored there to be used in any future emergency.


Brooke Claxton: I think the answer is that almost all the machine tools, which we added enormously to during the war, were tools capable of peacetime uses. As we ended war production, those tools were disposed of through War Assets Corporation for use in civilian industry and if it were necessary the process could be reversed and the tools once used in war could be used again in war.


Howard Charles Green: Are Canadian Arsenals not
to be under the Department of National Defence? We have been told that the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is to give up this job of purchasing for defence departments. Which department is to be eventually in charge of Canadian Arsenals?


Brooke Claxton: That has not been finally determined. My view is that the Department of National Defence should have just as little to do with purely civilian activities such as production and so on as is possible. We should limit ourselves to defence activities as such. I am really thinking out loud now. It may be that Canadian Arsenals will come back to the Department of National Defence and, if so, we shall welcome them. It may go to some other department if reconstruction and supply closes down. Possibly Canadian Arsenals will come to defence and some of the

other activities such as purchasing will go to trade and commerce as well as some part of the inspection.


George Russell Boucher: I understood the minister to say that the right of procurement for the Department of National Defence is not being retained and that other duties were being assigned to the Department of Trade and Commerce and to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Is it not a fact that the personnel who were in the procurement branch of the Department of National Defence prior to the war and who were lent to munitions and supply, later reconstruction and supply, under the war supply board, are now being invited1 to join the Canadian Commercial Corporation and are being faced with the fact that their former positions in the procurement branch of national defence are abolished?
Such being the case, is it not a fact that national defence is to be entirely deprived of all connections with procurement, even to the extent of abandoning the personnel that have been built up, and that Canadian Commercial Corporation, a crown company, is to procure supplies for the Department of National Defence along with its other duties? Is it not true that besides the career civil servants who were in the Department of National Defence and who were charged with the procurement of supplies, there are loanees from private industry who will be doing this work? That being the case, I think there is considerable weight to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South that we should think well before the procurement of supplies and commodities is taken out of the Department of National Defence and given to a crown company.
Would the minister explain that situation? I believe that in procuring weapons and supplies for national defence it is much better to have it done through the department directly concerned than through a crown company which is much farther removed from responsibility to parliament and from the direct control of the Department of National Defence. In view of the fact that a statement has been made that this duty was being transferred out of his department, I think the minister should give us a statement on policy.


Brooke Claxton: As the hon. member for Vancouver South said, during the war the Department of Munitions and Supply developed very useful associations with industry. Our thought was that at the end of the war those associations should not be ended but that some branch of government should continue to have close contacts with indus-

National Defence Act
try, that could be used in the event of war. It seemed to us to be the most sensible course to transfer from the Department of Munitions and Supply some of the key personnel who had done so well during the war to an agency of government and so continue to make available in the public service information they had gained in the war. On that account the decision was taken and announced in the house on February 5, 1947, to have the functions of defence purchasing, hitherto exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That seemed to be the sensible way to proceed and that is the way it was done.
The functions of the Department of National Defence with regard to procurement will be limited largely to special classes of things of which there is only one possible source, and even then they will work closely with the Canadian Commercial Corporation. If it is not done in that way it is possible that we may get into a situation which my hon. friends would be the first to refer to as giving an opportunity for what they would call political patronage and the like. What has been done seemed to us to be the most effective way of ensuring that the job is efficiently done, that it is done having regard to the interests of the defence of Canada and also to make sure that our war-won experience and knowledge and skill continues to be made available in the national interest.


George Russell Boucher: The minister says that
if it were left with the Department of National Defence it would be subject to political patronage.


Brooke Claxton: 1 did not say anything of the kind.


George Russell Boucher: Does the minister not
realize that in a crown company set up with loanees from private industry, many of whom may be particularly interested in the things they are purchasing, more interested in their regular vocation than in their temporary employment, a company which is acting apart from the Civil Service Act, apart from immediate responsibility to government, utterly divorced from parliament, there is much greater advantage for political patronage of favouritism? The opportunities for this sort of thing would be much greater than the patronage that might emanate from members of parliament. The patronage that might emanate from the key officers of the company would be of a much greater degree than that which would occur in any department administered by permanent career civil servants.


George Randolph Pearkes: Did I understand the
minister to say that it was his intention or desire that arsenals should be removed from the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: No. I said that as a
general idea it was my view that it would be a good thing for the Department of National Defence to relieve itself of all functions other than those having to do with pure defence. That would not necessarily include Arsenals.


Howard Charles Green: I have not had an opportunity to give this matter sufficient thought to be absolutely sure that I am right; but, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs will remember, we had some worrisome days before the war over this question of equipment. At the outbreak of the war we found ourselves in a terrible position. I hope the government has not finally decided that this move is to go through. I understood that it was only the purchasing of supplies for defence purposes that was to be turned over to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: But when I read the Prime Minister's statement, at page 132 of Hansard, I find that he said: "to buy or produce war supplies and to carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence." All the rest of. his statement refers only to purchasing. The Prime Minister points out that this Canadian Commercial Corporation is a purchasing agency, which is correct. But when we go from purchasing to producing we move into an entirely different field. Production, of course, was the main field of the Department of Reconstruction. Surely the Canadian Commercial Corporation will not be sufficiently interested in the procuring of equipment for the defence of this country to make a specialty of planning for the production of war materials. Certainly the Department of Trade and Commerce will not be interested to anything like the same degree as the Department of National Defence. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is sitting here right now and I am sure that he would agree with me. It is not the job of his department to make plans for being in a position to produce the weapons of war when they are needed. That surely is part of the job of the defence department. The job of the defence department has been too limited by the minister tonight. He says that they just have to do with the defence of the country. But we know from our experience in the years before the war that one of the main jobs of the defence department was to get Canada in a position to produce war
National Defence Act

equipment. I urge the minister to give further consideration to my suggestion that cooperation with industry and the actual production problems having to do with war equipment be handled by the Department of National Defence. Let the Canadian Commercial Corporation under the Department of Trade and Commerce do the actual buying, but do not make them responsible for seeing that this country is in a position to produce what weapons are required.


Brooke Claxton: I made it very clear that cooperation with industry was being regarded by the Department of National Defence as an important part of its functions, and that is being seen to. With regard to the functions of the Department of Trade and Commerce in defence matters, the only thing that has been transferred is purchasing. The other matters, the ultimate disposition of Canadian Arsenals and the like, are quite open. We shall certainly give consideration to the views that have been expressed.


Howard Charles Green: Then the Prime Minister when he spoke of the Canadian Commercial Corporation being responsible for producing war supplies and carrying out projects required by the defence department went farther than was the intention of the government. Is that, correct?


Brooke Claxton: The corporation would have power to do that but it has not yet been entrusted with any opportunity to exercise that power. That is open for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Defence research board.
Thomas John Bentley: There are two questions I wish to raise on this section. I have occasionally been twitted in the house for not having legal training. I have listened to a lot of lawyers talking this afternoon. I want to get some cheap legal advice and I know of no better way of getting it than by raising this question here. Subsection 4 of the new section 5, appearing on page 1 of the bill, provides:
Such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for carrying on the business of the department may be appointed in the manner authorized by law.
Then subsection 4 of the new section 8, appearing on page 2 of the bill, provides:
The governor in council may by regulation:-
(a) notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and section five of this act prescribe the manner of selection-

-of the staff of the defence research board. Does that mean that the governor in council can disregard the law in making these appointments?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: The governor in council can go outside the law in making these appointments?


Brooke Claxton: Outside the Civil Service Act.	.


Thomas John Bentley: Subsection 4 of the new section 8 mentions the Civil Service Act, but subsection 4 of the new section 5 simply says that such officers and employees as are necessary may be appointed in the manner authorized by law.


Brooke Claxton: There is only one law applicable I think, and that is the Civil Service Act.


Thomas John Bentley: Then I think it might be well to have said so, in order not to confuse those who are not lawyers.
I have another question. Subsection 3 of the new section 8 provides that the defence research board may:
(a) enter into contracts in the name of His Majesty and establish scholarships in connection with and make grants in aid for research and investigations for national defence.
Is it intended that the results of all the work of the defence research board shall be applicable only to defence projects, or will they be made available for the benefit of productive enterprise throughout the country?


Brooke Claxton: Anything with civilian application will be made available.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Subsection 5 of the new section 8 says:
The minister may request the Minister of Finance to allocate any portion of the moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose of the board for scholarships or grants in aid of research.
Why is it necessary to have that sentence in at all? It would seem to me that, if the moneys are voted in a general appropriation for the purpose of defence research, there would be no necessity for this procedure of requesting the Minister of Finance to allocate any portion of the moneys, whereas if the moneys were specifically appropriated to a certain defence research project this section would give the minister power to divert the moneys appropriated by parliament for a specific purpose to some other purpose. It would appear to me that the moneys will either be voted by parliament in a general

National Defence Act
appropriation to be used for general purposes or in a specific appropriation when it would be the intention of parliament that the moneys were not to be switched from one purpose to another.


Brooke Claxton: The only purpose of this sentence is this. Say' that the defence research board have a man who is doing a good job of research in a university which will have defence usefulness and that they want him to continue on that job for two years. They get from parliament a certain sum of money in their vote for defence research. Then they can go to the Minister of Finance and get him to allocate that money if more than one year is required to enable that man to complete his job.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: This is just so that it will not lapse?


Brooke Claxton: That is the only purpose.


George Russell Boucher: What do these words in subsection 5 of section 8 mean?
All expenses of the defence research board shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose or received by the board through the conduct of its operation, bequests, donations or otherwise.
I take it that this defence research board will engage in some operations through which it will itself make money. Appropriations and bequests will be made, but only in the case of specific appropriations will parliament be authorized to pass upon any of the expenditures. Will the minister explain it?


Brooke Claxton: I understand that this provision is taken from the provisions of the National Research Council Act, and while I do not expect that many people will donate money for the purpose of defence research, it is possible that, as a by-product of defence research, the board may receive in Canada or from outside Canada money which could be used again.


George Russell Boucher: I might point out to the minister that, under the National Research Council Act, the national research council is authorized not only to do research but to carry on manufacturing, to sell its products, to sell patents, to sell inventions and to get considerable revenue. When passing the National Research Council Act last year many hon. members were quite alarmed at the fact that the national research council could get in its own money and invest it without its being appropriated by parliament at all. We are now giving to the research defence board the same privilege, under which they will be making profits, possibly and spending their profits
without any accounting to parliament whatever and not even to the Minister of National Defence. The fact that this section is in the National Research Council Act is no justification whatever for its being in this bill. Unless it is contemplated that the defence research board is to make money other than through receiving bequests and obtaining money other than from parliament, this section should not be in the bill. If it does get money, then it should deposit it in the consolidated revenue fund and have it appropriated for specific purposes. It is not good business for parliament to delegate power of this kind, power to spend money which may have been earned, without accounting to parliament for it.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member will appreciate that in this matter we shall very likely be cooperating frequently with other nations, and it is possible that just as we might join in a joint project with some other country to develop something of common interest to us, and might contribute to its expenses, so we might expect them to contribute to the expenses of doing a job of research in our country. In that event they would want to have the money they contributed go directly to the job of research. That is about the only kind of situation that we can envisage which is likely to arise in this matter. I think it is worth while to keep the power in the bill.


George Russell Boucher: If the minister will reflect on it I think he will find that the section goes a little farther than that.
There are other points in the section to which I should like to raise objection. Subsection 2 of old section 8 says:
The director general of defence research and the other members of the board shall hold office during pleasure and shall be paid such salaries, remuneration and expenses as may be fixed from time to time by the governor in council.
This is an important body. Altogether too much leeway is being given to it to change from time to time the salary, remuneration and terms of employment not only of the officials but of the employees of the defence research board. Subsection 4, paragraph (a) reads:
notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and section 5 of this act, prescribe the manner of selection, remuneration and terms of appointment and service of the officers and employees engaged in the work of the defence research board . . .
It seems to me that the government is definitely going out of its way to free itself from any possible connection with the Civil Service Act. I believe that the employees and
National Defence Act

many of the officials of the defence research board stand in exactly the same position as men in any department of government who are given employment under the Civil Service Act. The paragraph to which I have just referred goes farther and says:
(3) Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the defence research board may,
(b) establish and support a pension fund or make other pension or superannuation arrangements for the benefit of all or any of the permanent or temporary officers or employees of the defence research board.
If this board, as the minister would lead us to believe, and as he said the other day, sought to come under the same pension scheme as the national research council there might be some little justification for that, but this paragraph gives them the power to set up their own pension scheme, to regulate their own terms of employment in so far as temporaries and permanents are concerned. It is possible that they will have many men on loan from private industry working side by side with men who are on loan from one of the departments of government, men who are permanent employees under the Civil Service Act. If men from private industry on loan to the defence research board were given the same superannuation that they had in private or that provided under the Civil Service Superannuation Act I do not see that there could be very great objection to their paying contributions while they were there, but this is entirely different. This section says that not only shall we pay them salaries, not only shall they have power to make provision to continue the superannuation that they had when they came to us from private industry or from another department of government, but we are setting up a separate and distinct superannuation scheme. In addition to that, I do not think we are playing fair with the civil servants who have entered the profession to make it a career when we allow men from the defence research board1 to dictate to us and set up for their employees a scheme or an arrangement different from or better than that under the Civil Service Act. If the Civil Service Superannuation Act is good enough for the permanent career civil servants, surely it should be good1 enough for those who come to the defence research board on loan from private industry.
This section goes a great deal farther than that. I say this with the utmost sincerity. If the minister will look at this I think he will find that it will cause a great deal of dissatisfaction, a great deal of jealousy and a great deal of animosity among the permanent civil servants, the men who have entered' the

service of their country and have made it a career. I would ask the minister to think this matter over carefully. I believe we are giving the defence research board, with the approval of the cabinet, something that should be handled by parliament itself, something that should be handled by the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Brooke Claxton: May I reply quickly. The hon. member has referred to section 8 (2) of the act as it would be amended. There is no suggestion that anyone should receive any salary to be fixed by that section except the members of the board and the director general. As the hon. member knows, deputy ministers and the like have their salaries fixed by the governor in council.
With regard to the question of pensions, the intention is that the permanent staff will come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act; the scientific staff will come under the national research council pension fund, if one is established. If a couple of years go by and there is no such fund1, then some measure would have to be found to look after the scientists. I should point out that as regards the scientific personnel of the defence research board, it is not expected that they will be employed over very long periods of time. It is expected that they will have to go back to their universities, their institutions or their industries. They will be here for limited periods of time. They will have to receive salaries that are fixed accordingly and will work usually in difficult circumstances and in rather uncomfortable places, involving a considerable amount of risk without any possibility of public acclaim or praise. On that account it is not possible to fit them into the ordinary civil service structure. With regard to the ordinary employees, they will be dealt with along the ordinary lines and it is felt that there is no difficulty there. I believe that this measure meets the need for the creation of a defence research board, and if the board can be established on a sound foundation in the next year we shall probably find it desirable to give it a more permanent structure in the form of some special act. But at the present time it is considered that this is the most flexible way in which to deal with an urgent problem; that is, to continue the good work done by the highly skilled people who have been working for us during the war, and this we believe to be the best way to do it.


George Russell Boucher: Does the minister not agree that such employees as are not specially skilled or scientific should be left under the Civil Service Act and the superannuation act? There are many of those who fit into exactly

Housing
the same classifications as men under the Civil Service Act. Surely they should be left under that act.


Brooke Claxton: There will not be very
many employees of that class except daily-rate employees. This does not envisage a large-scale organization.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 18, 1947