1948-04-16

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1947, in English and in French. The report is being distributed this afternoon.
I wish to move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1947, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCULLOCH (Pictou) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I was able to announce the termination of the strike of officer personnel employed on deepsea dry cargo vessels of Canadian registry at Atlantic coast ports.
I am pleased now to advise the house that a settlement has been reached on the Pacific coast and ocean-going vessels which have been held up by the strike there will be free to sail from British Columbia ports immediately.
The terms of settlement on the west coast are the same as those previously reached on the east coast. Wages and working conditions of officer personnel for the coming year will be as recommended by Mr. Justice D. A. MeNiven, industrial disputes inquiry commissioner, and the companies and unions have agreed that there shall be no discrimination in employment or legal action taken or penalties imposed against officers who have been on strike.



PALESTINE


Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) asked this question, as reported at page 2804 of Hansard:
Will the government consider the advisability of prohibiting the soliciting of funds in Canada for the purpose of supplying these Zionists with arms and ammunition?
I am asked to make this answer. Arms and ammunition cannot be exported from Canada without an export permit, and no export permits have been granted for the shipment of arms and ammunition to Palestine. Nor is exchange authorization given for the transfer of funds from Canada to purchase arms and ammunition abroad for shipment to Palestine. Therefore the government does not consider it necessary at the present time to take the action suggested.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretaiy of State):: Yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) asked a question concerning the holding of public office by members of the civil service, and I told him that representations had been made and the matter was receiving consideration. I have much pleasure in advising him now, and also hon. members, that an order in council has been passed amending the previous order in council of 1932 concerning the acceptance by civil servants of municipal office. The order as amended will now read:
Provided always that the minister administering or in charge of any department may, in his discretion, grant permission to any of his officers, clerks, or employees, to accept a municipal or civic office which does not carry with it a salary, honorarium or other emolument exceeding nine
Inquiries oj the Ministry

hundred dollars per annum, if, in the opinion of the minister, the acceptance of such office does not interfere with the proper and regular performance of his duties as a civil servant.
I might say that the previous figure was $500.



JOINT DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the action taken yesterday by the United States House of Representatives in voting $3 billion to increase their air force from fifty-five to seventy groups, has the minister or the Canadian government during the last year received any representations from the United States government regarding the expansion of the Royal Canadian Air Force? Since the United States government has taken this action will the Royal Canadian Air Force be expanded in implementation of our joint defence agreement?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: In answer to the first question as to whether we have received any requests from the United States government that we should expand our air force I can say no, and I think it would be almost inconceivable that such a request should be made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Brooke Claxton: In answer to the second question, the provisions for the Canadian navy, army and air force have been put before the house in the estimates and any increases would be put before the house in the form of supplementary [DOT] estimates if that becomes desirable. The intention of the government will be made known in due course.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: On a question of privilege, I said "representations" and not "requests" of vthe United States government.


Brooke Claxton: I think I should add a further word in reply to the hon. member for Trinity's question concerning the agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to joint defence. I did not have -'tice of his question and I have not before me the statement regarding joint defence which the Prime Minister made in the house on February 12, 1947; therefore I cannot give the page of Hansard, or the actual text of the agreement. But I do think it important that the agreement, contained in the joint declaration, should be taken for what it is, namely, an agreement under five heads. Anything in the nature of the suggestion of my hon. friend

certainly would not be within the purview of that arrangement.



EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to tell us yet of the effect that the Marshall plan, now that it is passed, will have on our dollar situation, and in particular whether it will enable the government to remove any further items from the effect of the austerity taxes.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I made a statement on that matter the other day in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. If the hon. member will look at page 2854 of Hansard he will see my views on it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought that the minister may have got more information since then, and that I could get information which was up to the moment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; my answer was given only a day or two ago, and I am afraid there is nothing really new since that time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Having regard to the violent exception taken by the western farmers to the net worth statement of the prairie farmers income tax forms, will the minister consider issuing new income tax forms, deleting the net worth statement, and extending the date necessary for filing them sufficiently to allow this action to take place?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it would not be
practicable to do that at the present time because the forms are already in the hands of the taxpayers.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the

Human Rights
Minister of Finance, I do not know which one. It arises out of a report in the Globe and Mail this morning of a statement made by Mr. J. C. Patteson, retiring president of the Canadian chamber of commerce in Great Britain, in which he said that trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is severely restricted.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: My question is this. In view of what Mr. Patteson said, is the government aware of the parlous condition of Canadian commercial interests in that country arising out of economic forces and the prevailing foreign exchange situation, and has the government given consideration to the relaxation of some of the controls, restrictions and prohibitions so that Canadians may buy more British goods, which will meet our shortage here and help our foreign exchange situation? If so, what consideration has been given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know, trade between the United Kingdom and Canada is moving freely and seems to be on a fairly satisfactory basis.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the minister or any other minister had no representations from Mr. Patteson, retiring president of the Canadian chamber of commerce in Great Britain, to that effect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley (for the Prime Minister) for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: I think I should say a few words in reply to some of the statements that have been made. I am not sure that I should do so, but in any event my remarks should be very brief.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is the minister closing the debate?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. KNOWLES:: On a point of order, the minister is speaking in the debate on my amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true; I am speaking on the amendment.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: And the minister is not closing the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not closing the debate, because of the amendment. After the amendment is disposed of it will be open to anyone to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Including yourself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall just say a word about the amendment. I will accept the amendment. It is merely an empowering amendment. It is understood of course that it is not in any sense a direction to the committee. It merely gives the committee power to make certain recommendations to the House of Commons, which it may or may not choose to make, and so long as that point is clearly understood I accept the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is up to the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to point out to the house the great importance of this motion in view of what happened in the second rape of Czechoslovakia last February and March. We have already lost the supremacy and the freedom of the seas, and do not know where it is going to land us. We do not know where it is going to land Canada. Because of that loss I wish to take part in this debate on human rights.
The events which have taken place in Europe in recent days have shocked the entire civilized world into recognition of the grave danger that faces not only the people of Canada and of the United States but the British empire as a whole, because of the irreconcilable difference between western ideas of democracy and the ideas of the east. For that reason I wish to say something this afternoon on the motion that is before the house.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his persistence in bringing this whole human rights matter to the attention of the house. I referred to it myself when parliament met in September, 1945. On that occasion I discussed this whole subject. The hon. member deserves a great deal of credit for pointing out to the house the grave danger in which our country finds itself at the present time.
For four centuries we have depended for our freedom on Britain's supremacy on the seas.

Human Rights ___________________
British naval might saved us, or rather our forefathers, in the days of Philip of Spain and the Spanish Armada, as it has done on other memorable occasions, in the days of Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twice in our own generation against Germany. British naval power and command of the seas saved the whole civilized world. From the peace that followed Waterloo in 1815 the world had a hundred' years of peace, until the outbreak of the first world war in 1914, because Britain was supreme upon the seas.
The motion which the Prime Minister has introduced for a committee of both houses on human rights is concerned with the fundamental freedoms of speech and of assembly, and freedom from want and fear, as set out in the Atlantic charter. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to get the attention of hon. members opposite. If they are not interested in what I have to say, at least they should be interested in the subject I am discussing. Does freedom, and particularly the freedom that I have been referring to for the last few minutes, the freedom of the seas, mean nothing to hon. members in this house? We can find time to discuss the price of sugar, the price of wheat and other material things, but apparently hon. members are not interested in their own security. It is about time we all woke up to the danger that faces us.
I was referring a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, to the Atlantic charter. The word charter has undergone some change. It is defined in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary in these terms:
Charter-Written grant of rights by sovereign or legislature, privilege or admitted right.
That is one of the meanings, but in our day it has come to mean a good deal more. I say this because under our system we have a complicated constitution. I agree with what the Minister of Justice has said, that there are certain provisions in our constitution that leave a wide field to the provinces. We are part and parcel of the empire, and I suggest that we should never overlook that fact in considering our relations with other parts of the commonwealth with respect to a motion of this kind. I contend that the principles which the fathers of confederation had in mind did not contemplate the duplicate provincial system we have today. Property and civil rights fall within the provinces and it is difficult to secure uniform law. When the Supreme Court of Canada was created the purpose was to hold an even balance between the municipalities and the provinces

on the one hand and the dominion on the other, under the charter which we call the British North America Act.
In my opinion we should have the right, as a parliament, under the Supreme Court Act, to refer to that tribunal any doubtful matter, and in this connection I suggest that we should have a legal committee functioning in Canada. We should have had one years ago. I have frequently urged something of the sort. Certainly there should be some body to which we could refer matters such as that which we have been discussing in the last few days.
Since confederation the enforcement of federal law has been delegated to the attorneys general of the provinces. The federal government does not enforce its own enactments. I contend that there should be federal enforcement of federal law, but because we have not the proper machinery for the enforcement of these laws, their enforcement is turned over to the provinces, who in turn further delegate it to municipalities and local police forces.
In considering the motion before us we have to take into account the constitutional act of 1791. Much of the common law of England has been copied into our constitution, since 1791, as adapted to our circumstances, including the right of habeas corpus and the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, and Magna Carta. It must not be forgotten that the principles of Christianity have also formed a part of the common law of England, and since 1791 that has been copied into our laws. Unless we do everything in our power to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today, and above all to do our part in maintaining the freedom of the seas, through the naval supremacy of Britain, we may find ourselves in very grave danger, with one-half the rest of the world armed to the teeth.
The main questions before the country today are parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet reform and law reform. We have had no law reform in this country, as far as I can see. The jails have been filled with people who should not be there. We talk about human rights and all that sort of thing, but many of our young people have been suffering as a result of our system of controls. Fundamentally, the motion is sound in principle, but whether it can be enforced is another matter. In the olden days might was right. Today, might plus right is right, especially in the world as it is at the present time. Under the British constitution the courts are subservient to the legislature. That is one of the cardinal principles of the English constitution and has been from time immemorial.

Human Rights
We have seen the effect of this in many ways in our own country, observing what goes on both within and outside Canada. I have always insisted in this house that, ever since the year 1770, parliament has been recognized as the body charged with the determination of national expenditures. It was on the principle that there should be no taxation without representation that the United States of America, or as it was at the time of the secession, the colonies, broke with Britain, when the people of Boston threw the tea into the harbour. The British people from that time to this day have demanded parliamentary control.
Since the lights went out in Europe in 1914 we have had pretty nearly thirty-five years of war and fear. The people have been haunted by fear, restraint and discipline. Fear is filling the cemetery. We have a tendency to over-organize. We are living in an age in which labour is taught to fear capital and capital is taught to fear labour. The United States fears invasion and boom and bust. The world fears the atomic bomb. Everyone fears someone or something, and liberty is nowhere. What we want in Canada today is more freedom and less legislation which interferes with the liberty of the subject.
The world outlook today is exitremely dark. As was stated by William Pitt in the House of Commons in England, "necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." If you look at the world today, you will find its condition set out in the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
That is exactly what you have today. Where is freedom of the seas? Let me tell you that questions have not been and will not be answered in the British House of Commons. Where will you be without freedom of the seas? That was the real Monroe doctrine for nearly two hundred years, the supremacy of Britain on the seas, and freedom of the seven seas. Where are you going to be without it? I can tell you, and I cannot be successfully contradicted. In the old country there is the navy league. They are up and doing and they know where every ship is. But what have we here? We have not a battleship on the seven seas. We have not a carrier or a destroyer on the seven seas today. The navy has simply been wiped out. Where are we going to be in this country? Yet there is talk about the 5849-193
price of food and all that kind of thing. I may say that the country does not belong to those who sit here in this house representing their constituents. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future. Where are you going to be while all this is going on?
I am a great admirer of the people of the United States. I wish to refer to them now for a few moments. The people of the United States, now that they are running the united nations, and the organization is located in their midst, need not think that the second league which they created at Lake Success will be any better than the other one. These leagues have been in existence for over a hundred years. Hon. members will recall the Holy Alliance which led a great prime minister of Great Britain, George Canning, to urge Britain to get out of Europe and unite, and led to the Monroe doctrine in 1823. From that date forward the Monroe doctrine was the supremacy of Britain on the seas, which gave them the freedom they have.	_
I marvel at what the people of the United States have done in two wars. I think it would be better, though, if we were to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our side of the world's story. Look at the way these things have been handled at Lake Success. Wait until the historians write up these events. Look at what has beeni done with regard to Palestine, India, the Suez and Greece. Look at what happened in Geneva; millions in buildings erected there. All the newspapers commented -and not in one or two or three lines-on the collapse of that league over in Geneva. Look at the way they have bandied Palestine, the Indialn situation, the Balkan states, and the Baltic states. All these matters have been before this united nations organization, and everybody has wanted to go down there 'in such a great rush and stop at the fine hotels. I venture to say that when we get the bill for a floor of a Biltmore hotel or two $100,000 will be a small amount compared with what has been expended at the great feast that has been going on down there. Wait until the people find out what has been going on.
Has Lake Success made it any easier for the United States to get on with Russia? I should say no. The U.N.O. at Lake Success has been one of the most mischievous institutions we have ever had in the past or will have in the future. Today I think that western civilization is farther apart from eastern civilization than it has ever been in the past. There is no use in our supporting these leagues any longer; they have been a flat failure in the past. There is no use in
Human Rights

Poland and all the others. I have always contended that we should see to it that our method of representation creates no injustice and does not infringe on the liberty of the subject. There should be freedom of thought and freedom to seek a living voluntarily, without being coerced as they were under the statutes of labour in England in the thirteenth century.
We should support private enterprise without interference politically or otherwise. I am opposed to government by the delegation of controls and moving the control of parliament to the law courts, whereby personally controlled judicial boards grant individual freedom. That cannot be in a democracy; there is no real democracy in a condition of that kind.
Tradition is part of the policy of the party on this side of the house. We have respect for the ancient customs of ordered life and living, for privileges of parliament and freedom of speech, for legal respect, for the independence of judges and the judicial system. This party has respect for all that kind of thing.
Also as Progressive Conservatives we believe in bridging the gap between owner and workman, landlord and tenant, ruler and ruled. There is a unity of purpose, and all classes are bound, because our future happiness depends upon mutual sympathy and understanding in a Christian way. When Disraeli saw two nations, the rich and the poor, living within one country, he provided aid and succour to the weak by introducing social legislation. In my opinion the past cannot be separated from the present or the present from the future. We cannot escape from the responsibilities of the present, or shrink from our duty toward the future. We have accepted the doctrine of trusteeship.
It is for these reasons I shall support the motion. We need no longer think that we can Jhave any of our freedoms under organizations *such as that at Lake Success, which is nothing !but a tower of Babel. We must not allow our interests to be thwarted. Does any hon. member know any nation which will permit its own interests to be handed over to another country? Certainly no nation will do that, unless she is so small that she cannot protect herself. Because after all is said and done patriotism is the cement that binds nations together. Those nations in Europe which have been overrun by the Soviet union want their freedom back. Let us look at Czechoslovakia, formerly one of the freest peoples in the world. Look at the way they were raped for the second time in the month of February last.
One of my reasons for supporting this motion is that I believe we shall always have patriotism, because people love their country. Love

of country is something that cannot be taken from one. After all, it was Sir Walter Scott in the Lay of the Last Minstrel who said:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within his burn'd As home his footsteps he hath turn'd.
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If suc-h there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name, Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentrated all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust, from whence he sprung, Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung.
No country, not even Canada, should leave its own affairs to other nations or to Lake Success; you cannot have peace or security by any such procedure or farce as that.
They tried it before. It was tried in the Holy Alliance, 1815 to 1823, and that was a failure. No country will allow other countries to run its affairs, unless that country is too weak to fight in its own defence. In Canada at the present time we have no defence. The future of both Canada and the United States depends upon the peoples of those countries. Today at least they are wide awake, after what happened in Czechoslovakia. But the leagues, or the united nations organizations, or towers of Babel, or Lake Success, or the Marshall plan, can do nothing better than Great Britain and her dominions can do when they are working together and hanging together and united together. I say that because Great Britain and her dominions are vastly superior in resources than either Russia or the United States. The minute we depart from the empire, Great Britain will become a second-class power and neither Britain nor her dominions will have anything at all to say in the peace terms.
Our position in the future is of great importance. We should re-establish our air policy; the empire air training plan should be set up again at once. Our position at the present time is an important one, and it is because of that that I say our air policy should be planned, in consultation with Great Britain. We should have an empire security council, and all that kind of thing.
I had not intended taking part in the debate, but I felt I should make these few observations. What would become of the people of this country in another war? In the last one we had submarines right in the St. Lawrence river. At Riviere du Loup, where the submarines are said to have been, the river is as

Human Rights
wide as is lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake to the eastern gap. But the newspapers then did not say a word of it; the people were not entitled to know. Are we going to have the same situation as we had here in 1938, when we were entirely unprepared? Are we going to wait until the enemy comes?
The trouble with Russia all started down at Lake Success, because we will remember that during the war Russia was an ally. After the first great war we lost two of our allies, Italy and Japan, and we never should have lost them. We have lost one of our allies from the last war, and will lose some others, because those others have no security. Are we going to wait until our enemy comes here and sails up the St. Lawrence river?
We have a long and unprotected coast on the Pacific, stretching from Puget sound. What are we going to do about it? Britain has no battleships, destroyers or fleet carriers out there.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Thomas Langton Church: We have none on the Atlantic, the Pacific or the Mediterranean, and it is time we had some.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I thank hon. members, through you, sir, for your courtesy in listening.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say in this debate will not take more than two minutes. However I believe mine will be a contribution of a practical kind, one which will be worthwhile, because it relates to those who are reaching our shores now from Europe, from the displaced persons camps, as workers, farmers and relatives of Canadian citizens.
The people who are coming here have suffered much; they have lost much, and they have feared much. Almost invariably they are confused as to their rights of freedom in this new land to which they come for the first time. Therefore I suggest that the government should form orientation centres at our ports to which the ships are bringing these people. There the workers, farmers and relatives should be held for a few days only, so that they may be told about their rights, privileges and freedoms in the country they are entering. At the same time they could be shown some films and given information about the climate of our country. They could begin their cultural orientation to our Canadian way of life. They could be told how the machinery of our electoral system works, and, most important of
all, they could be told what to do when the agent of a foreign power threatens them when they reach Canadian soil.
This last mentioned is the most important suggestion I have to offer. I believe they should be told even before they reach our shores what they can do with respect to those who would continue to threaten them in Canada. They should be told how to approach our police, how to advise Canadian authorities respecting approaches made to them. I make these suggestions because I know the newspaper articles are quite true in their reports as to incidents which have taken place on trains and in homes in Canada.
I hope that the government will take note of this suggestion in order that our hopes for the future and the rights and privileges enjoyed in this free country may be brought to the attention of our new citizens immediately upon their arrival.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I usually speak French in the house and English in the committees. This afternoon I shall try to express in English what I have to say, and I hope that I shall not be too long, in order that I may please as much as I can those whom I am going to criticize.
In this country, and especially, may I add, in my province of Quebec, we are all for civil rights and freedom, and this question has been widely discussed on many occasions. But the difficulty lies in the fact that it is hard to establish a sound basis from which to start. To hear some hon. members in this debate one might think that a few of them-fortunately only a few-were ready to give equal freedom to evil and good. In my province we are not ready to give equal freedom to evil and good. It is all right to talk about civil rights and freedom,, even for those who are organizing from central Europe in order that they may be ready to break our back when they judge the proper time has come. In this country it is useless to name those who are getting ready to break our back and to do it more rapidly than this house seems to think.
I should like to refer to the question put by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), speaking in this debate the other day, as reported at page 2871 of Hansard of April 12, where he said:
But I am always inclined to ask myself which of these freedoms we have lost, or which of them we are in danger of losing.
In answer to his first question I would say that no one can reasonably maintain that we have lost any freedoms in this country. To the second question I answer that in reality we are in danger of losing many freedoms.
Human Rights

Some members, I say, give me the impression that they are ready to give equal freedom to evil and good, even to those very same people who are ready to break our back. What would those people do if they were in our place in this free House of Commons? They would ask for freedom and civil rights in this house, but outside the house they would organize and tell their friends to get ready for the day of revolution when they will overthrow by force and violence this very government of Canada. What we are being asked to do is to give more freedom and civil rights to these people.
I am a Catholic, and I am absolutely opposed to materialism and atheism. To every Christian I have no hesitation in saying that we must not be ready to give equal freedoms to those who are daily fed with materialism and atheism, because not only would they destroy our democratic form of government; at the same time they would destroy the creed in the minds of our people who believe in the existence of God. We cannot allow them to do that. That is my stand on this resolution.
I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He made a wonderful speech. It took a very able lawyer to make such a speech in favour of human and civil rights when in this free country the civil rights and freedoms, especially of the Frenchspeaking people, have often been denied in some quarters, and we were told to keep quiet. We did not bring forward any resolution or make long speeches saying that we were persecuted. No, we continued our march towards national unity, assured that some day that national unity would be attained by the good will and consideration of everyone in this country. We did not leave the country. Sometimes we may have appeared to some to be taking the wrong way in refusing help to those who were asking us to go and fight nazism and fascism. But it was agreed, if I may say so, that we were not obliged to take part in any external war. That time however has gone, and now we have come back together to make this country the best in the world. In doing that we should not be ready to give sufficient freedom to our enemies within to help to secure the proper weapons to destroy this very country of ours. To do so would be absolutely illogical, and that is why I am trying to give my thoughts to the house this afternoon.
Someone said the other day that in trying to pass a law to ban communism we were using the same weapons as the communists, doing the same things that the communists are doing. That may be so, but when it is a question of life or death I say let us strike

first in order not to be killed afterwards. That is why I would favour the passing of such a law-not because I believe that that is the only way to stop the spread of communism, Mr. Speaker; far from it. But if that is one of the weapons we need to stop the march of that evil theory to which some of us are ready to give freedom equal to what they give to the real democrats in this country, then we should use it.
On the national ground, Mr. Speaker, I could give example after example of the truth of my words this afternoon. The people of this country, yea, the people of all the countries of the world, were not aware of the danger ahead. Now they are afraid of the danger within and the present danger. Some of the nations of the world have banned communism. Is communism spreading more rapidly in those countries? Take Brazil, for instance. They imprisoned Julio Prestes. Brazil is victoriously overcoming communism. They have banned communism. Turkey has banned communism, and they are fighting communism equally victoriously, and Soviet Russia.
Chile has done the same. Let us hope that more countries of the world will do the same. Very often some people will say: Would you like fascism better? No; I am a real democrat. But sometimes some nation, especially the united nations, would be glad to have a Spain, a fascist-ruled nation, at the present time, to stop communism from spreading in Europe in order to take away from England the strait of Gibraltar. I was reading the other day a book entitled "Forging of a Rebel", and I discovered in that book- I saw the information was accurate because I checked it in other books, and one of them was that book on Stalin by Trotsky-that communism has been working since 1915 in Morocco across the strait of Gibraltar, and that Doctor Juan Negrin had developed a war in Spain. In saying that they had developed a war in Spain I am not trying to excuse Franco, but I am stating the real facts about Spain.
Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that communism will not spread wider in Europe; let us hope that it will not go farther than it has gone, but if it should go farther we would be glad to have fascist Spain to help us to defend what is left of democracy in Europe. I should be glad if our representative in the united nations would whisper in the ears of England and the United States not to try to take Spain away from the European recovery program, because they are in a position to help democracy. This is the time to assist freedom and civil rights, because the Spaniards

Human Rights
are enjoying that regime at the present time, and it would be right to ask the other nations to try to help England. If England, with her socialist government, does not understand yet, let us hope that the people will continue their victorious march, started in the municipal elections, and that they will do away with a government that has no understanding of the real advantage to England of having the assistance of Spain.
With regard to the united nations organization, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I shall say things that may not be approved by everyone in this house or outside of the house, but I am speaking my mind. I think that the shadow of communistic Russia has been falling on the united nations organization for too long a time. Notwithstanding their numerous vetoes, very often we can see from the speeches delivered by Gromyko and Vishinsky that they have a deliberate goal to attain. It is to try to impress on the nations of the world the necessity of giving more freedom outside Russia, and outside the iron curtain, in order that their organization may go farther in these very countries. We have been warned before. For instance, we were warned in 1932. I hold in my hand a copy of the judgment in the King vs. Buck and others, delivered by the court of appeal of Ontario, concerning the communist party in Canada. In a preface to the judgment Mr. William H. Price, the then attorney general for Ontario said:
The chief justice has outlined in the judgment the origin of the communist party of Canada, has referred to the evidence showing it to be an integral part of the world-wide communist international.
There is no question that the communist party of Canada is just a part of the communist international. We cannot discuss it without wasting our time. In the judgment we find the following:
According to the evidence of the accused Timothy Buck, large numbers of communists in Canada, in the fall of 1920, secured copies of those theses and statutes and in 1921 several groups of communists held a conference in Canada and formed an association called the communist party of Canada. Buck testified that the communist party of Canada was a section of the communist international and that from the year 1924 onward the above-mentioned theses and statutes became binding upon the communist party of Canada.
The communist international at the meeting of its second world congress (its supreme governing body) held in Moscow in July, 1920, passed certain theses and statutes. Two editions of them were published, being exhibits 27 and 103 at the trial.
"The communist international makes it its duty to support with all the power at its disposal every soviet republic wherever it may be found. . .
Russia is asking for the same civil rights and freedom for all citizens of the world, because she is ready to support every republic wherever it may be found under the role of the communist workers.
Only a violent defeat of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property, the annihilation of the entire bourgeois governmental apparatus, parliamentary, judicial, military, bureaucratic, administrative, municipal, etc. . . .
You are ready to give more civil rights and more freedom to those who want to do all this to your free institutions? You are asking that they be given more freedom? I do not understand how anyone can ask that such people be given more freedom.
It was in the name of civil rights and freedom that the French people had La Declaration des Droits de l'Homme in 1789. What happened in France after that? There were a few revolutions. There was one in 1848 and another in 1871. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the chiefs of government in France, who were radical socialists with a tinge of communism, though they did not confess it frankly, who passed laws to deprive a few million Frenchmen of their religious teachers, were not in favour of greater freedom and civil rights for themselves? They were in favour of .more human rights and more freedom.
In 1901 they re-enacted another law which had been repealed before the fall of Napoleon III. In 1901, under the socialist premier Waldeck-Rousseau, after that law had been re-enacted by the French parliament, the religious teachers and institutions of France were penalized. Do you want to give people of that kind, the people who were ready to do that sort of thing, greater freedom in this country ? In the name of civil rights and freedom, do you want to give them the power which they will inevitably obtain if we continue extending more and more freedom to them in their evil-doing? Do you want to give such people freedom to do in this country, if possible, more than they did in France?
We cannot do that. We must keep wide awake. My hon. friends have read "Speaking Frankly", by Byrnes, on the international situation, and those who have read it know what is going on. To those who will take the trouble to read serious writers or, I would say, even to read communist writers, I commend a book prefaced by Senator Pepper, entitled' "Great Conspiracy against Russia", a copy of which was sent to me by a communist of Montreal. They will read in that book what organizations like the NKVD would do in this country.
Human Rights

What, happened in that organization? They killed each other simply to retain power. They are doing precisely what Stalin did in the name of civil rights and greater freedom, when he had three trials against Zinoviev and Kamenev, with Yishinsky acting as attorney general. As a result of those trials where were the victims sent? Everyone here can give the answer to that question. Is that the situation we wish to develop in this country by giving greater freedom and more civil rights to people who are coming here, presumably to become good Canadians, but who are really waiting for an opportunity to break our back, if war should break out with Russia? That is the real situation.
I do not mind if there is laughter at this. I know I am right. I know that we have not been sufficiently afraid of the danger that lies right ahead of us, and it is about time we stopped these people. It is about time we stopped asking parliament to give them greater freedom to kill us.
When I was a student in the Catholic seminary of Quebec I read the speeches delivered in, the Senate of Rome by the great Cicero to Catiline, public enemy No. 1. He must have been the Tim Buck of that time. Cicero said to him: "When, 0 Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?" I am asking that very question of every man in this country, whether he is Canadian born or foreign born, or whether he is a communist. How long? I know it will be for a long time, because this institution of communism is more than a political party. They make a wrong use of the freedom they have been given, and which they gladly received when they came to Canada. If they do not understand the kind of freedom we have, which is real; if they do not understand and cannot appreciate the real freedom they are enjoying here, then I say, let them go back home and leave us to make this Canada of ours a great country. It is already a great country, but what we wish above all else is national unity. We want the freedom that we have been enjoying, even if sometimes there is what we call in French un petit accroc.
We have attained this freedom for ourselves and we do not want to have these people destroy it just to obtain a greater advantage for themselves in organizing their evil workers. And when I say workers I mean communist workers on every step of the social ladder.
I ask these people to think as Canadians. If they cannot, it is most unfortunate, because we are Canadians. And to those who, I repeat, are sincerely asking for more civil rights and freedom for these people, both on 
international and on national grounds, I say, be careful not to give equal freedom to evil theories and to good theories. They have no right to act so that their acts will destroy this democracy of ours, because I believe in democracy.
I want to finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by these words that you must have heard when Frenchmen sing their national anthem, La Marseillaise: "Liberte, Liberte cherie". We enjoy it here and, however, important he may be, we do not want anyone to destroy it. We are going to fight it out to the end and we are going to keep it in spite of everything.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Shall the motion as amended carry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should say a few words, Mr. Speaker-


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should say a few words before the motion passes. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-niell) asked me to express my opinion as to-whether this thing is any good at all. He said, as reported at page 2881 of Hansard:
... I think we are at least entitled to hear from the Minister of Justice whether he thinks, it is a good thing.
Earlier he said:
I think we are entitled to know from the-Minister of Justice, who is a serious man, whether this thing means anything.
He was talking about the international bill' of rights, not the proposal for a national bill of rights, so-called, about which I shall have-something to say before I finish. I thank the-hon. gentleman for the confidence he reposes in my judgment but I myself feel that my-judgment is not particularly good on this matter. As he asked a serious question, however, I think perhaps I should undertake a serious reply.
I am of the opinion that the insertion in the-charter of the united nations of the articles referring to human rights and fundamental freedoms served a useful purpose. Article 13' of the charter provides:
1.	The general assembly shall initiate studies, and make recommendations for the purpose of:
b. promoting international co-operation in the-economic, social, cultural, educational and health, fields, and assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
Before the war and during the war, peoples-in many parts of the world had terrible experiences as the result of the violation of human

Human Rights
rights and fundamental freedoms. One now needs only to think of what went on in nazi Germany and in other countries to realize the force of what I am saying. Certainly this objective-the promotion of international cooperation for the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms-is a high, noble and worthwhile one. The very insertion of these articles in the charter of the united nations I think has caused the governments and the peoples of the world to look critically at themselves with a view to seeing whether their own laws, the administration of their own laws, their own customs, their own practices, violate, in any substantial way at least, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Pursuant to that article it was deemed necessary to set up a commission on human rights and to undertake this measure, the drafting of what has been called an international bill of rights. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said, this is a task of enormous difficulty. It is a task that will not soon be completed. A draft bill of rights has been submitted to the countries of the world for their comments. This draft bill of rights, as I said in moving this resolution, consists of three parts: a draft declaration of human rights, a draft covenant of human rights and measures of implementation. I have no doubt that, before any agreement is arrived at, many changes will be made in this international bill of rights. There will be many exceptions, many qualifications, many provisos and many escape clauses. The prospect is a somewhat formidable one, but I believe that not only are we committed by our signature to the charter of the united nations but that the task itself will be a worthwhile one which I hope-and I cannot do any more than hope -will come to something after a very considerable length of time.
We were criticized by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario for not moving more rapidly since January. We were criticized, I think, by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) for not assuming responsibility as a government for making comments and suggestions to the united nations on the draft bill of rights. In the British House of Commons the speakers who dealt with this urged not haste but deliberation. I do not think that there was so much hurry about this matter that leaving it until it could be placed before a committee of parliament, and before parliament, before the government made their comments and observations, in any real sense prejudiced the objective which we hope will eventually be attained.
I have been speaking about the international bill of rights. I have not been talking in a tone of undue optimism or enthusiasm, as hon. gentlemen will know. But I am responding sincerely to the invitation given by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario to express my opinion as to whether it is a good thing or whether we are justified in spending our time thinking about it. I think we are. I think we are justified in doing so.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will the minister speak a little more loudly?


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right. With regard to the proposal which interests a few members of the house more than the international bill of rights-that is, the national bill of rights that has been suggested-I should like to say just a few words. The proposals in this debate have been not that our constitution be amended so that the provinces and the dominion would both have the field of their activities in the realm of civil rights curtailed; the proposal has been that we enact a dominion statute.
I should like to follow the implications of that. That statute, of course, would not impose any restraint, except moral, upon future parliaments or future sessions of the same parliament. That is, this parliament could pass a statute the following year or any year thereafter which did not comply with the statute defining the human rights and fundamental freedoms which must not be infringed. On the other hand, to the extent that statute might be valid, to the extent that statute would be within the limit of our constitutional authority, it would impose restraint upon the provinces; and the point I was trying to make clear in my opening remarks was that we should be very careful not to stir up a provincial rights controversy over this matter unless we are very sure of our ground.
It seemed to be assumed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we should find out by a reference to the court how far we could go, and go that far. I do not think that is obvious by any means. I think when a curtailment of rights heretofore exercised by provinces in certain fields is attempted there is a little higher duty imposed upon the dominion parliament than to find out just how far it can go and go that far. I think they must have some regard to the traditions, the history, the feelings and the beliefs of the provinces as to what their powers are. The hon. member for Lake Centre says he does not want to invade any provincial fields; yet later in his remarks he accused the government of trying to centralize authority here. Well, no one wants to invade any provincial fields, and as far as we know we have never done so.
Human Rights

What are we being accused of? Not that we have invaded provincial fields or done anything illegally. We have been accused by the hon. member for Lake Centre consistently and persistently of having acted not illegally but improperly, in trying to centralize authority in this parliament and in this government. That is what we have been accused of. We do not want to act improperly.


John George Diefenbaker: If you have learned that lesson we have gone a long way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into too much of a controversy here, but you know it is a little hard to listen to my hon. friend protest his desire to be non-political and non-partisan, while at the same time, in a non-political and non-partisan speech, he makes a remark like this, which is found at page 2860 of Hansard for April 12:
When I observe the actions of some of the ministers in the cabinet I ask myself if these men are engaged in a competition among themselves for absolute power. Some show a greed for power. Some show that they are afflicted with the violence of unrestrained authority outside the law.
Parliamentary rules do not permit me to characterize that statement as I should like to do. I have sat in this government since 1935, and I have never sat with a colleague who had a greed for power, or who was afflicted with the violence of unrestrained authority outside the law, or who was in competition with another minister for power. What we did during the war and what we are doing now was and is done out of a sense of duty to the Canadian people. We are bringing everything before parliament in so far as it is possible to bring things before parliament, having in mind the emergent situations that arise. We have laughed off this idea that we are a group of little tyrants trying to monopolize power, trying to centre power in ourselves, greedy for power, and so on. We have laughed it off year after year, and perhaps we should laugh it off still. I do not think very many people believe it; but this is the kind of accusation the hon. member for Lake Centre has, I think, talked himself into believing. I want to say to my hon. friend, do not become inebriated with the exuberance of your own verbosity. Get away from this sophomoric invective. Get away from this adolescent abuse. Be mature in your criticism of the government. I am saying that to my hon. friend through you, Mr. Speaker. The government certainly is not perfect; the government makes mistakes, but do not get down to this ad hominem abuse and accuse us of being greedy for power, of competing with one another for power or of trying to centre power in ourselves for the sake of power, because there is nothing in it 
and members of this house, outside the hon. member for Lake Centre, do not believe it in their hearts, nor do the people of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no abuse as between the Liberals and Tories out in Saskatchewan. They are working together very well out there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Never mind. Then in his speech my hon. friend had some new suggestions to make, all of which will be given consideration. I remember that last year two of the prominent features of his speech were, first, that the War Measures Act should be repealed, and, second, a scathing criticism of the spy probe. He has not repeated those this year. Why? Would it be that the political atmosphere, the atmosphere of public opinion in the country, is not too favourable to a repetition of those points this year? Instead the hon. member offers new suggestions, such as the setting up of a civil rights division in the Department of Justice. I do not want to condemn that out of hand. They have a civil rights division in the department of justice in the United States, and of course that is what the hon. member had in mind. He suggested that it would be a reservoir, a place to which Canadians could go with their complaints; whereupon, naturally, those in charge of the civil rights division or the Minister of Justice would immediately intervene; would write to the provinces, I suppose, and say, "What are you trying to do with this kind of legislation?" I can see all sorts of friction and controversy arising from that suggestion;
I can see many objections to it; but, like the other suggestions, it can be given consideration.
When we set up this committee we shall consider what we ought to do and how far we ought to go with regard to this national bill of rights, so-called; and by the amendment which has just been adopted the committee is empowered to recommend that the government can have the assistance of the court if they wish. In this debate we seem to have thought that it is a simple thing to draft abstract general questions as to how far we can go, and put them to the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court will refuse to write essays in answer to abstract questions. Moreover those answers will have no binding force of law; they will not be final or conclusive. And it is going to take a considerable degree of skill, I may say, on the part of the members of the committee to frame any questions which will be appropriate to put to the court. I hope eloquence in debate in this house will be converted into diligent action in the committee, because I can see

Export and Import Permits Act
that the committee will have before it a task which it will be hard to discharge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The power given to the committee is also to draft the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When my hon. friend gets to drafting a bill of rights I think he will have to desist from quite so active participation in debates in the house.
I want to say a word or two about one remark made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). The hon. member made a statement with which I disagree, and I wish simply to state my disagreement without giving my reasons. He said:
There are amongst us many minorities, racial, religious, economic and political minorities, who are profoundly upset at the present state of freedom in Canada. They see a growing spirit of intolerance manifesting itself in not just isolated cases here and there, but in mass action against w'hole groups.
I just wish to say that I think a better case can be made for the proposition that we are becoming more tolerant in Canada than for the proposition that we are becoming more intolerant. And without going into this matter any further, and prolonging the debate, I should just like to say there is a great deal of truth in what was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) when, in closing his remarks, he said:
You can write these things into a constitution, but putting them on paper and making them law does not preserve them. They are principles of life, and they operate as an organism operates; as life operates. This government is not going to take them from us; perhaps no one in thisliouse is going to take them from us. If you want to write them into law, all right; but that does not preserve them and it does not give them to us.
I think we ought to quit talking as if this were a country' of tyranny and despotism, where people are deprived of their liberties. This is one of the freest countries in the world. Someone has talked about our embarrassment before the united nations by reason of certain laws and regulations we have in this country. We have not any cause for embarrassment in the united nations. One does not wish to make invidious comparisons between this and other countries. But take almost any country in the world you like, and you will have a country where there is far greater and far more infraction of personal liberties, human rights and fundamental freedoms than in this Dominion of Canada.
Why is that so? Because, just as the hon. member for Macleod has said, these principles are principles of life. They operate as an organism operates, as life operates.
Those are the only observations I wish to make.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) as amended agreed to.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. 138 intituled: "An act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: Mr. Speaker, when Bill No. 138, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act was before the house for second reading on April 8, amendments to the bill were indicated. Those amendments are set out in full at page 2769 of Hansard of that date.
Because of the nature and extent of the amendments proposed, some question was raised as to the regularity of the proceedings. That question as to the regularity of the proceedings is one upon which there could perhaps be considerable discussion. There seems to be very little doubt, however, that any question concerning regularity of procedure can be settled by an instruction to the committee. With the unanimous consent of the house, I would now move such an instruction.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I move:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill No. 138 (Letter U3 of the senate) as follows:
That clause one of the bill be deleted and the following clauses substituted therefor:
"1. Section three of the Export and Import Permits Act, chapter seventeen of the Statutes of 1947, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(2) The governor in council may by order, which shall be published in the Canada Gazette within fifteen days after the passing of such order, establish a list of countries to which section five of this act shall apply, and such list may be amended by the governor in council by order so published.
2.	Section five of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'5. No person shall export or attempt to export from Canada any goods included in a list established pursuant to subsection one of section three of this act, or any goods to a country named in a list established pursuant to subsection two of such section, except under the authority of and in accordance with a permit issued under this act.'
Export and Import Permits Act

3.	The said act is further amended 'by adding thereto, immediately after section six thereof, the following section:
't>A. No person shall, in any application for a permit under this act or for the purpose of procuring the issue of any permit under this act, wilfully furnish any false or misleading information or knowingly make any misrepresentation.'
4.	Section seven of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'7. The minister, or any person designated by the minister, may issue to any person applying therefor a permit to export from Canada, to such place and in such quantity and of such quality as may be specified in the permit, any of the goods included in a list established pursuant to subsection one of section three of this act or any goods to a country named in a list established pursuant to subsection two of such section and may amend, suspend or cancel any such permit'."
2.	That clause two of the bill be renumbered is clause five.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
a, few comments on this motion. When the minister introduced it the other night he told us, and I think properly so, that the real change being made was to be able not merely to control commodities, as the act formerly authorized, but to control destinations.
The minister made some interesting remarks indicating just why that required to be done. However I wish to read some of the remarks. I should like to carry the mind of the house back, for a minute, to the real gist of the original control, and then I want to point out what a tremendous additional power this is. It is not small; it is a great power, and we should not take it lighly. I believe we should make sure that everything has been considered before we go so far as this goes.
I should like to recall one or two things which took place at the time of the passage of the original act. It was made clear then, and I think to the satisfaction of all concerned, that there were certain commodities -I believe steel was one of them-which, because of their shortage, needed certain controls. I recall very well the illustrations given to us as to the way in which the control operated.
There would be various manufacturers in Canada competing for steel. There was not enough steel to go around, and the available quantity had to be allocated so that each manufacturer would get his required amount. It was made clear to us by competent civil servants that this had gone to considerable lengths'-and I am not criticizing them; I am only stating what we were told-that the minister's department had had to go to considerable lengths in discriminating not merely as to quantities but as to the claims of one industry against another.

One of the illustrations given to us was of a certain industry which was manufacturing here for export, which was considered probably in the nature of a war baby, and which was manufacturing something that had formerly been manufactured chiefly in Holland. It was not thought that industry was likely to be able to continue against foreign competition as time went on, and so it was considered less worthy of receiving steel than an industry in a different line of business which it was thought could continue. I mention that to make this point. It was clear that, just as soon as this power to control imports and exports was given, a wide field would be opened where the authorities had to begin to decide whether this business or that was most entitled. That legislation was passed a year ago. Now the minister comes back and asks for power, as he puts it, to control destination, and he has related that to the coming into effect of the Marshall plan. I should like to repeat briefly what the minister said. His words were:
It is apparent that the continuing world shortages, and the intensified demands that can be expected once funds are available to European countries will entail in Canada as in the United States, the need for directing supplies to those countries whose requirements are most urgent, and in such quantities as to ensure equitable distribution.
One paragraph more I want to read:
I think the committee will agree that in the early rehabilitation of Europe and the United Kingdom lies one bright hope for world peace. It is important therefore, that every shipment we send to European shores contributes directly to this purpose. There is need, however, for machinery to implement this objective, and this amendment, I believe, meets this requirement.
The thing that perplexes me as I think this over is this. I can see that there has to be some correlation, some over-all arrangement, so that the available supplies are sensibly distributed where they are needed. I ask the minister whether there is to be a combined plan in Europe whereby the European nations will agree among themselves as to the allocation of the materials available, or whether there is to be, as I saw suggested, some kind of queue in Washington of the European nations who are beneficiaries under the plan, coming there and presenting their claims and leaving the matter to be more or less haggled out. I go on to make a further point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment. He has asked me questions with the Speaker in the chair. Is there any objection to going into committee and putting the questions there? This is just a motion to consider instructions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very well.
Motion (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.

Export and Import Permits Act
The house resumed from Thursday, April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 138 to amend the Export and Import Permits Act -Mr. Howe-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister has an amendment to be moved.


James Joseph McCann: I move, Mr. Chairman:
That clause one of the bill be deleted and the following clauses substituted therefor:
"1. Section three of the Export and Import Permits Act, chapter seventeen of the statutes of 1947, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
'(2) The governor in council may by order, which shall be published in the Canada Gazette within fifteen days after the passing of such order, establish a list of countries to which section five of this act shall apply, and such list may be amended by the governor in council by order so published.'
2.	Section five of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'5. No person shall export or attempt to export from Canada any goods included in a list established pursuant to subsection one of section three of this act, or any goods to a country named in a list established pursuant to subsection two of such section, except under the authority of and in accordance with a permit issued under this act.'
3.	The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section six thereof, the following section:
'6A. No person shall, in any application for a permit under this act or for the purpose of procuring the issue of any permit under this act, wilfully furnish any false or misleading information or knowingly make any misrepresentation.'
4.	Section seven of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'7. The minister, or any person designated by the minister, may issue to any person applying therefor a permit to export from Canada, to such place and in such quantity and of such quality as may be specified in the permit, any of the goods included in a list established pursuant to subsection one of section three of this act or any goods to a country named in a list established pursuant to subsection two of such section and may amend, suspend or cancel any such permit.' "
2. That clause twro of the bill be renumbered as clause five.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The question I was asking was this, whether the European nations who are to be beneficiaries under the Marshall plan are going to arrange the distribution, or is there to be a queue of them at Washington? What bothers me is this. The minister said in effect that in order to make this thing work there must be co-ordination between the United States and Canada as the main suppliers, so that there will be a working arrangement as to
how the goods are to be sent. That is no doubt true, but what is not clear to me is why this power, and it is a tremendous power, is needed for that purpose. Perhaps I had better stop my question there and let the minister explain, because what bothers me is that this, as I see it, really puts an end to private trading in this country in respect of a wide range of commodities. We are not told now what the commodities are, but I have before me the report of the board for last year, which covers quite a range of commodities. Nor are we told which countries are to receive these goods. I would ask the minister, with his knowledge of private business, which we all know is great, to explain just where the private individual stands. Just what does this mean? Does it mean that the private firm may just as well forget any connections it has in any of the countries designated? Incidentally I would ask the minister to give us an idea whether the number of countries designated is likely to be small or very large.
I repeat, this should not be regarded as a small or incidental power, but as a very great and far-reaching power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To answer the last question first, there are at present sixteen countries on the committee of European economic cooperation qualified to receive ERP aid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that include any countries beyond the iron curtain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Roughly it includes all those west of the iron curtain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, except Spain. That is the situation. My hon. friend has asked whether the countries are coming to Washington to ask for goods, or whether allocations will be made in England and filled from Washington. That is a very difficult question which has not yet been decided. I am just awaiting word from Washington to go there to discuss the matter. I have been invited to be there at the appropriate time, which I assume will be within the next week or so. Private trading is very much restricted in any event in view of the credit risks and exchange difficulties in the sixteen countries we are now discussing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But you are going to ensure this and make it possible for them to get the goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There will still be a little difficulty about money. Practically every
Export and Import Permits Act

transaction is cleared through the department of commerce. There are very few entrepreneurs operating today.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister said that practically every transaction was cleared through the department of commerce, did he mean the Department of Trade and Commerce in Canada or the United States department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Canada. We have had difficulty over the years in stopping exports to certain countries; for example machinery to Czechoslovakia. We have had no means of doing that unless we pass specific legislation. There is the additional point that if we join with the United States in certain commitments under the European recovery program we do want to have the power to make sure that private enterprise does not divert to other countries material that we have sold to or committed to ERP. We may never use it. It is not likely that that will happen, because I think private enterprise is, on the whole, just as anxious to co-operate with the government in ERP as it was to co-operate with the government in the war. 'Nevertheless it is a solemn matter to make a commitment with another country, and we wish to make sure that if the commitment is made the commitment will be carried out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand that the minister from day to day has knowledge of the commitments to be made by private individuals to foreign countries? Is that what I understood the minister to say a moment ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, under the present law if it is commodities they must come to the department and get an export permit in order to export goods to almost any country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Therefore the minister does know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We know, yes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: These permits will be issued in conformity with the plan of supplying to ERP.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If this amendment carries. Today we have no right to refuse a permit on the basis of the country. The only basis for refusing a permit is that Canada requires the material in Canada for national reasons. In other words, if we have surplus material the export permit issues automatically today, because we have the right under the present bill to direct the supply of commodities, but we have no right to direct materials to be exported to one country and withheld from another.


Mr. COLDWELL:: It is not so much a matter of withholding them or being able to control exports so that supplies will not go to a country you do not like.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Major James William Coldwell: As I understand it, this is a bill to ensure that supplies do go to countries to which we are obligated to send them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it exactly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not see the risk. If the minister does not know what goods are already committed to Luxembourg, let us say, and then commits himself to send a lot more and finds that there was a surplus and overlapping I cannot see that that would create a danger to be guarded against. But if in fact the department knows from day to day that goods of a certain type are already going to Luxembourg and knows the total amount required, it can then buy the additional amount itself and send them. The reason I am saying this is one which the minister will appreciate. It seems to me, whether you like it or not, that this is just saying to the private individual, there is no use in your doing anything; it is in the hands of the government. It seems to me that you are saying to the ordinary entrepreneur, the ordinary man, working hard to build up a business, Just go and roll your hoop. It is no use your showing the energy and initiative which we want you to show. Is that a fair way to put it? And if so, is it not a serious state of affairs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To me this gives very little additional power to control exports in any section of the world outside western Europe to which we are exporting and will continue to export. The point I make is this: if we join with the United States in ERP, it is very similar to joint supply projects during the war. At that time we had the power to direct material to the sources. War material was, of course, entirely in the hands of the government. We could direct it. But this is supply material; and if we go to Washington and a list is laid before us and we agree with the United States that we shall take care of a certain part of the list and they will take care of certain other parts of the list we become responsible for that supply. Well, without being able to regulate our exports by countries, a situation might arise where we could not supply it for the reason that the goods, if the transactions were entered into, were diverted to another country for probably private reasons or for some other reason over which we had no control.

_____________Export and Import Permits Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that you are taking a steam hammer to crack a nut. I would have thought that the danger was remote, and not only remote but even if it did arise it would be trivial. The minister knows business in this country like the palm of his hand. He is in touch with people. I do not believe these dangers that he points out are serious. On the other hand, I think that to stifle initiative, which I think is what it is doing, is serious. The minister says that we have many other countries besides western Europe to whom to export. Nevertheless we rely greatly on western Europe.
There is one other thing that arises. As I understand it, we have no knowledge yet of exactly how the United States are going to work this out. If I understood the minister correctly, he said he expected to be called to Washington shortly to confer with the people there and to take the necessary steps. But now, in advance of that and, I submit, before the minister knows what powers he really needs, he is coming and asking for these very wide powers. He is not fooling in the powers he is asking for. The minister has had wide powers, and I do not hesitate to say that he has often exercised them very well. He made a remark a moment or two ago which I think is symptomatic of the trouble we are in now. He said, we had these powers or similar powers during the war. In effect he says we have them now. I admit that great emergencies still exist. My hon. friend to the left may very naturally approve this, as I expect he will. It is right down his alley. This is what he believes, and no one can criticize him for it; but to those of us who believe that initiative and private energy should be given as much scope as possible I confess I find it very disappointing to see another door being shut, and nothing that has been said convinces me that it is necessary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to my hon. friend that this is a free enterprise bill, and he is advocating for state buying. If the only way we can fill an ERP order is to buy the material in Canada and ship it ourselves that would be a move toward socialism. If we can control the export of free entrepreneurs through granting export permits, as we can do if this bill passes, it is in my humble opinion, greatly in the interests of free economy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder whether the minister's answer is quite as perfect as it appears. I wonder whether I have been wrong in thinking that the minister, both the other night and a few minutes ago, suggested-certainly he did, if I did not misunderstand him-that there would be a great deal of government buying to fill these orders.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said I did not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I am wrong in that, then to that extent perhaps my question goes astray.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I just say a word? I am inclined to agree with the minister, as a matter of fact, that our present method of doing business in Canada, that is by what is called free enterprise, and the present methods that are being adopted to supply European nations to my mind-while I would prefer to see the government enter into negotiations and agreements for bulk sale and buying-does not do what my hon. friend says I would like it to do. I think the minister is right, that this does permit free enterprise a great deal of scope, and all you have is a permit system instead of a complete bulk sale to the nations that need the goods. That is my view, and it is a criticism perhaps that I might make of it.


Mr. CASE:: I do not suppose we can all be right. It seems to me that the regulations will have to be fairly strict. It will mean a channeling of trade; it will mean, I fear, a danger of dampening or restricting the possibilities of production that you are seeking. We seem to be predicating our economy on the success of ERP. I regret that we have not foraged more for ourselves. In other words, what I would expect to result from this would be an economic dovetailing into the whole of the United States economy. It may be said that if they are putting up all the money they should say where the goods are to be obtained, who is to do the shipping, and so on. I am inclined to feel that the minister has left something to private enterprise, but it will be fairly closely regulated. Will this, then, mean that we are to be dove-tailed into the economy of the United States? If so, what shall we have left?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is opening up a large subject. I have never found any objection to selling goods to the United States over a period of years, and I have never found it to be a method involving Canada or destroying her independence. That position will continue. As a matter of fact, this makes little change in the policy. We have a permanent system today and export a great variety of materials. The shipper must obtain an export permit. There is this additional power in issuing the permit, that we can regulate by countries as well as by commodities.

Export and Import Permits Act


Mr. GREEN:: Are all sixteen countries to be treated in the same way? Will the regulations applied to shipments to Great Britain be the same as those with respect to shipments to continental countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily. It depends on circumstances. As a matter of fact, we know no more about ERP than my hon. friend does. The regulations have not yet been framed and the director was appointed only some ten days ago. He has not yet obtained an office. I would ask my hon. friend not to press me for details on ERP because, frankly, I do not know them.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not a fact that the nations which are co-operating in ERP have made it plain that, while they expect to co-operate closely with the United States, they are expecting that the aid which is given is given on the distinct understanding that there will be no interference with their economies. The minister is going to Washington, and I should hope that when he is in Washington, instead of accepting directives from the United States, he will represent Canada in the capacity of a representative of a government which is a partner, a junior partner if you will, but nevertheless a partner and not a satellite in this particular arrangement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that when I go outside Canada I represent Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain how shipments of lumber from the Pacific coast will be affected by the new arrangements?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the faintest idea.


Howard Charles Green: Then why should the minister not wait until he gets a few ideas before asking for an amendment to the act? He is going to Washington in the next few days, and it might be wise to defer consideration of the amendment until he knows about the plan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position is this. All lumber from Canada is being sold today. About 25 per cent of the export is going to the United Kingdom under an old contract, and the bulk of the rest goes to the United States. Whether that will continue I cannot say. In any event the permits are given with the present pattern of trading in mind. If the pattern of trading changes, the permits will be given in accordance with the change.


Howard Charles Green: Will the United States be able to say, for example, what percentage of the British Columbia lumber is to go to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just what has the United States to do with timber in Canada? The United States will say what it wants. We shall decide what we shall do.


Howard Charles Green: They will have no voice with regard to the shipment of Canadian lumber to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: What is the minister's
answer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This has to do with import permits as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was not able to read the full account of the report in the paper this morning, but the minister probably knows Mr. J. C. Patteson aind he will know Mr. Patteson is a reliable man. Mr. Patteson says that trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is severely restricted. I suppose so. I quote from a press item reporting what Mr. Patteson said:
He appealed for relaxation of some of the restrictions and controls, and warned that the situation today is more devastating than at any period in the history of the Canadian organization.
That is a strong statement. The item goes on:
Canadian commercial interests, active in Britain, were in a parlous condition due to economic forces and the prevailing foreign exchange situation. Though there was a strong sentimental desire in Canada to buy British goods, such trade was severely restricted by controls. In some cases it was entirely excluded; in others there were token imports of 20 per cent.
That seems to me to be a strong statement coming from such a man. I asked the minister the other day whether he had had representations from Mr. Patteson himself. Has he had any representations from the chamber of commerce, and will he comment on. the statement which Mr. Patteson has made? I do not think it can be taken lightly, because he would not have made the statement in that spirit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read that clipping more closely he will find that Mr. Patteson was talking about controls against Canadian goods entering England.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I read it carefully and I am sure that was what he was talking about. He was speaking in England.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But he was speaking for Canadian interests over there.

Export and Import Permits Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know Canadian interest in England is to get Canadian goods into England.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I happen to know of Canadian interests there who have been affected in Canada by not being able to bring things in. Perhaps he is talking about that, but I think it probably has something to do with this other matter as well. The minister says he knows nothing more about it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me read again what the minister said, as reported at page 2769 of Hansard:
. . . in Canada as in the United States, the need for directing supplies to those countries whose requirements are most urgent.
I am referring to what the minister said, and I want to be clear. He said, as I understand. and I admit the words bear out what he said, that directing supplies does not imply government purchase of supplies. I want to ask him this question: Does he say now that there will not need to be government purchases of supplies to fulfil the requirements which we may find from the European countries? Does he say that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would sincerely hope so, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is different. We want to know as a matter of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I have told the hon. member, we have never bought lumber. We have [DOT]shipped lumber to England for years and have never bought it. It is bought in England by English buyers and shipped from here, and that is true of other commodities. I see no reason why, after all these years of the war and export restrictions, the government should suddenly go in and buy everything.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope that is so, but you are stepping into a quite different situation from what you had then. I note that, whereas a few minutes ago the minister said there would not be government buying, now he says he hopes there will not. But that goes back to what the hon. member for Vancouver South said. Are we not getting off ahead of the gun? The minister told us he does not know what ERP involves and does not know what measures will be taken to work it out, and yet we now are being asked to pass measures on the basis of a situation which is still entirely obscure. I should have thought it more sensible to deal with the bill after he had been to Washington and found out what the score was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What we are asking for is a very minor and simple amendment. My hon.
friend is building this up into a house of cards to a perfectly ridiculous extent, I suggest. He wants the assurance, that we will not buy anything. We have never bought lumber; we have always bought wheat and I presume we shall continue to buy it. I sincerely hope we shall allow the trade to sell its own lumber, provided that it sells it in countries to which we have ERP commitments. Nothing could be simpler than that. If the hon. member goes down the list he will find that they fall into one classification or the other. The purpose of this bill is to make it unnecessary to change them from the one classification into the other. If they are commodities that the trade have been ordinarily selling direct, we would prefer, and this bill would so provide, that the trade should continue to sell direct, provided that they sell to countries to which we had a commitment. Surely nothing could be simpler than that,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I admit that there is a great deal of force in that, but I still come back to this. The minister has told us that he has no idea exactly what measures will be taken in the United States in order to carry this out. Yet here we are now asked to pass a measure which is designed for the purpose of dove-tailing with the United States arrangement. That seems to be getting off ahead of the gun.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce are the people responsible for these transactions. They say they need this amendment. It is a simple amendment. It cannot possibly harm any legitimate interests that I can think of in Canada. Does my hon. friend seriously say he wants to tie up another day in parliament over this trifling amendment? Surely not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not say that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said he thought the things I was referring to were things which were being imported into Great Britain. I should like to draw his attention to the article I referred to when I first brought the matter up. The end of the article reads as follows:
Though there was a strong sentimental desire in Canada to buy British goods, such trade was severely restricted by controls. In some eases it was entirely excluded; in others there were token imports of 20 per cent.
I myself know there are certain imports which are prohibited from coming into Canada from Great Britain. I cannot understand why that is done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no 20 per cent token imports.

Export and Import Permits Act


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There are prohibitions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no token imports so far as we in Canada are concerned. The token imports are United Kingdom imports. The hon. member reads a newspaper and he believes every line in it. But he will not believe me when I tell him that Canada never adopted a system of token imports.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The writer calls them token imports, and the minister knows as well as I do that there are some prohibitions of imports from Great Britain at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That comes under the act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Bill No. 3 which we passed some time ago.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They are prohibitions under the act. That is what he is talking about at the present time. There are some quotas as well. I asked the minister, in view of what is taking place and in view of what he says, if the government had taken this under consideration. The government said no, that trade was moving nicely. As a matter of fact, I do not think this man would say that if trade was moving nicely and everybody was satisfied with the situation. That is what I wanted to know. I am now going to ask the minister if he will not look into this matter and see if something can be done so that Great Britain will get more of our dollars.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has referred several times to commitments. Apparently there are to be commitments to supply certain goods to certain countries. How will those commitments be determined? Will that be done on the government level, or just how does industry come into that picture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be frank with the hon. member; I do not know. I have told the hon. member that before. I know very little about the machinery of ERP, because there is none at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not . any idea how the commitments would be arrived at?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.
Section 2 as amended, and title agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.


William Ross Macdonald: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting of the house.


William Ross Macdonald: Next sitting of the house.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 197, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Contracts approved by governor in council.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: The other night I asked the minister a question with reference to the position of private insurers, and he told me that there were practically no private insurers who wanted to engage in this kind of business because of the risks involved. That leads me to ask two questions. First of all, why is it that, in business taking place on this continent, there were some million dollars or more which were insured under this act? The second question I want to ask the minister is this. I have been trying to explore the question of the private underwriters, and I am afraid what he said is correct. I was disappointed to find the small extent apparently of international insurance on this continent. It has always been my understanding that London was one of the great centres of underwriting, that one of the great specialties of the London business world was the readiness to underwrite almost anything. It is hard for me to believe that there would be no underwriters ready to do this business in London. I wanted to ask the minister with regard to that point, and whether it is not possible that more trade could be given to them. After all, the great thing needed in London now is an opportunity to earn dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding is that Lloyd's of London stopped this type of insurance; as a matter of fact, they have never done it at all. The British board of trade have been handling this type of insurance since 1920.


Mr. JACKMAN:: What is the nature of the business, if this is pertinent to what we have under discussion, of the great London discount houses and the merchant bankers? I thought they purchased bills of exchange from such persons as foreign shippers or foreign buyers

Export Credits Insurance Act
and gave the man who presented the draft his cadh. Is that not a recognized business over there? I always understood that it was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. My hon. friend is talking about merchant banking. This is merchant insurance.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is there much difference? This is quite a different situation. The exporter to South America, let us say, presents his draft on the South American importer to a discount house in London. He gets his cash, because the discount house knows the credits in South America, or whatever country it is, and that is tantamount to financial insurance, where a bank gives you your credit in return for a premium. In all banking there is an element of financial insurance, a transfer of credit risk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What my hon. friend says is quite true, that the banker gets a paper which he will discount and give the cash for; but the purpose of this act is to ensure that the bank gets the paper.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That seems hardly a complete answer to the question. Surely when the Canadian exporter ships the goods he must draw a draft on the foreign importer. It is not a question of getting the actual piece of paper. There can be no doubt about that, because it is no trouble for the importer to give the paper. The real risk is involved in getting ca^h in Canadian or United States dollars for the draft on the foreign importer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is all business done through banks. Let us assume a transaction of which we have had several, where a South American country orders a ship built in Canada. If that country will deposit paper in advance to cover the full cost of the ship, there is no need for this insurance. But most ships are built on progress payments, so much when the keel is laid, so much when the ship is 25 per cent completed, and so on. Very often the builder wishes to get insurance to ensure that those progress payments will be made when they are due. That is insurance versus banking. My hon. friend is talking about banking and we are talking about insurance.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But this is financial insurance, the minister says; this is insurance against the completion of a job, or construction insurance, with which the minister is familiar. That is purely financial insurance, to make certain the exporter will get his money. Is that not the chief or perhaps the sole purpose of this act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What other purpose has it?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not know; I am asking the minister. I say it is purely financial insurance, to make certain that the exporter will get his money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As my colleague the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, are there not in this country and in Britain houses engaged in this type of finance? Are there not such houses in the old country, where they badly need the premiums and can render a service for them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, neither in England nor here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am bound to defer to what the minister says, I suppose, though it comes to me as a great surprise, for there is a saying that Lloyd's are ready to gamble on anything. Leaving that aside, however, I understand that the minister has said the board of trade in England has done this since 1920 on a commercial basis for British firms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then why should they not get the business?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The British board of trade only cover exports from the United Kingdom. They have never suggested they would like to cover exports from Canada; and they do not use the kind of money that is of much good to us.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that is rather begging the question. That, I take it, is another matter; let us set it aside for the moment. If there is any possibility of having this done on reasonable terms by the board of trade in London I consider it unfortunate that we do not give them the chance to do so. You may say, Why have a public body do it there rather than in Canada? I would feel there was a great deal to be said for giving them a chance, though I must admit that argument is not quite as strong as it would be in the case of private underwriters. Again I ask the minister to make absolutely sure of what he has stated, that is, that there are no private underwriters in London ready to do this business. I put it to him that if there is any uncertainty he should follow that up, because I cannot believe that if this business is available the exchange side of it cannot be taken care of.
War Service Grants Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: My experts assure me there is not a private firm in any part of the world doing that kind of business.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 47, to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister making a statement on this bill?	.


Mr. GREGG:: Mr. Speaker, the War Service Grants Act provided for a board of five to review and examine the service records of those men classified as having been discharged from the forces with what is defined by the services as dishonourable discharge. It was intended that this board should see if there were any mitigating circumstances, in which case the board would have the power and would advocate payment of war service gratuity and the setting up of re-establishment credits.
The board began its work with the Department of Veterans Affairs in February, 1946, and up to February 29, 1948, completed a total of 7,879 cases. Of that number, 5,035 were given favourable decisions and 2,844 have been finally refused entitlement. Some 458 cases remain to be reviewed, and it is considered that this should not take very long. The department foresees a condition coming up shortly when it will be more economical and as satisfactory to establish a reviewing officer within the department to perform the few remaining functions formerly exercised by the board. It should be noted, I think, that, while this board has authority to interpret with respect to entitlement for re-establishment benefits, it had and has no right to change the record of a man's service. It merely considered each case with a view to advocating award of the gratuity or re-establishment credit.
At this time, with the approaching end of the work of the board, I should like to pay tribute to their approach to that work and the way in which they have executed a difficult task with understanding and humanity. I can assure the committee that from what I have seen of the work of the board its members have leaned backward to give the benefit of the doubt in all cases. In saying that, I think,

too, one should say it is a tribute to our Canadian forces in this war when, after being sifted by an impartial group of their peers and equals, that small group of less than -03 per cent have not been considered entitled to Canada's re-establishment benefits.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that the present board will review all cases which remain undecided?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, that is the intention. I am prepared to meet the wishes of the committee as to whether or not this bill should be referred to the committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Abolition of board of review.
Mr. LENNARD:: Are the rejections in the two thousand cases final, or would they be on hand if in the odd case an appeal were made?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Those are final as at this date. It was thought that a member of the department would have under constant review any new evidence coming to light at any time.


Howard Charles Green: Has consideration been given to setting up within the department a board of officials of the department who would make these decisions, instead of leaving it to one person? The powers are wide and these are important questions. I doubt whether it would be wise to leave them to one man. Surely some of the senior officials in the department could be constituted a board to deal with the few cases which may come up from time to time. It would not be necessary to have them paid for that work; it would be just another job for them. I suggest that this would be more sensible than the present provision which gives to one man in the department the job of reviewing all these cases, and makes his word law. Surely it is not wise to give one man all that power. The amendment gets away from the judicial function. This one man will become the employee of the department whose job it is to go over these cases. My suggestion is that we should have a board acting as a judicial body.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I agree in the main with what the hon. member says. As is shown in the bill, the board is still in existence. This is enabling authority to carry forward any further work when the main task of the board disappears.
In the preliminary discussions respecting the carrying-through technique to be applied afterwards, something along the lines suggested by the hon. member has been discussed. We will keep that situation in mind. In

Private Bills
other words, I can assure the committee that in the continuation of the work this official will be looked upon more as a person detailed to study cases, but that each case will come before the deputy minister and/or a committee created under him as the most effective means of carrying out the purpose of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: But that is not the way the section reads. The proposed amendment refers to abolishing the board of review and transferring its powers, duties and functions to an officer employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs, who shall be called the "'Reviewing Officer, War Service Grants Act". This officer "shall exercise and perform such powers, duties and functions in accordance with rules of procedure to be made by the governor in council." In other words, the amendment gives this employee full power, and there is nowhere any suggestion that the deputy minister or any other senior officials are to review decisions of this "Reviewing Officer, War Service Grants Act".
Could not section 12B in the act be left as it now stands? It provides for the appointment of a board of review and also states that the members are to receive such remuneration as the governor in council may determine. The minister could set up a board of review composed of his senior officials. They need not be paid any remuneration for this work, because there would be very few cases. In this way we would have a judicial board. Under the proposed amendment, one employee in the department, in effect becomes the board, and has all the powers given by the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I may be wrong, but I can see no reason why the objective sought by the hon. member could not be carried out, if this amendment were accepted.


Howard Charles Green: If the amendment passes, a veteran who has been deprived of his war service grant can appeal only to this officer; he cannot appeal to a board such as is described in the act.
The minister has intimated his intention to have some of the senior officers review the work of the reviewing officer. If that is so, then surely this amendment is superfluous. The proper procedure would be to appoint a board composed of senior officials with authority to do the reviewing. The preliminary work could be done by an employee of the board, but the final decision ivould be made by the senior officials.
I am certain that that is what the veterans would prefer, namely, to have the final decision made by a board rather than by one
man. Would the minister be willing to consider this during the supper recess with his officials?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall do that.
Section stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant) moved the second reading of Bill No. 150. to incorporate the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Mr. Speaker. I think very little explanation is needed. This bill is simply to incorporate into a national organization the Ararious provincial veterinary medical associations if they so desire. The names of the presidents of all the provincial organizations are on the petition for this bill. It will not interfere at all with the rights of the provincial associations. I do not think I need read the objects of the association, which are 3et out in section 3 of the bill. I shall be glad to answer any questions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 151, to incorporate the National Insurance Company.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not going to explain the bill?


Mr. RINFRET:: It is a very simple bill to incorporate the company, and with power under section 8 to acquire a French company named La Nationale Compagnie Anonyme d'Assurance contre l'lncendie et les Explosions. The bill is along the same lines as those incorporating two other companies last year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. Rinfret moved that the bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker-
Private Bills


William Ross Macdonald: The motion to refer the bill is not debatable. I thought I gave the hon. member ample time to discuss the bill on second reading.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview did not hear the bill called for second reading, and I submit that he should be allowed to make a statement.


Thomas Langton Church: I wished to speak on the second reading, Mr. Speaker. I shall take only about two minutes.


William Ross Macdonald: Under the circumstances, since the hon. member did not hear what I said owing to some noise ini the chamber, I think he should be allowed to speak.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why do these bills from the senate always have the same movers in this house? One hon. member has several bills ini his name. I object to the procedure with respect to these private bills. They are introduced in the senate and, after little or no discussion there, they are sent over here. It is becoming a racket if you ask me. I have followed these proceedings for the last month. The bill is introduced and read the first and second times in the senate, with hardly anybody there, and there is no discussion. Once in a while a bill is sent to a committee, where the whole discussion occupies only three or four lines, and then the bill is sent over here. The bill should be introduced here where the people's representatives are.
The present procedure is a farce and a racket. What discussion is there upon the second reading of the bill? How many of these insurance companies have we? Has the superintendent of insurance reported on this bill? I can find no discussion at all on the bill. Talk about the reform of the senate; they are here today and away tomorrow! They are on holidays now. We know nothing about these bills.
The committee system of this house might as well be abolished. I do not wish to reflect on the mover of the bill because he is an honoured member. I have a copy of the bill here, and I must say that I cannot understand why it was not introduced in the House of Commons where sit the representatives of the different constituencies, not only in the province of Quebec for which I have a great respect, but in the whole of Canada. Where is the report of the superintendent of insurance on this bill?
The company is being given power to trans-sact .fire insurance, accident insurance, aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, boiler insurance, credit insurance, and so forth. We have

had a dozen of these bills in the last few years. There are too many of them. The company can also transact earthquake insurance, explosion insurance, livestock insurance, marine insurance, personal property insurance and many other things. I proposed three years ago that we should have a body similar to the board of transport commissioners to look after these fire and life insurance companies and many others. There was an investigation made into these companies in 1929 or 1930. Many of them could not qualify for a certificate under the law. Many of them are purely provincial companies, and they are taking advantage of the senate to introduce the bills over there. The thing is becoming a racket. That is what I called it three or four years ago. If this house is to be flooded with bills of this kind, we are on very dangerous ground. There are too many of these companies. They pile up. Later, by some merger they come in and get a charter and float it all around the country; then they come back, and sooneT or later we find that it is gobbled up by some larger concern. If this is the way in which the House of Commons is conducting its business we are on very dangerous ground.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I am going to have a few words to say on this bill. I imagine that this is a dangerous field to get into. I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who has just taken his seat that the other place is beginning to initiate too much legislation. I notice that most of the bills which come from the other place deal with million dollar corporations. Without giving hon. members of this house, or a committee of this house, an opportunity to go over these bills and have some understanding of the intentions of the people who are sponsoring them, they are thrown at us at a moment's notice and we are obliged to make a decision on them. The first objection I have is that if the other place is to continue to initiate legislation of this kind some provision must be made for a committee of the House of Commons at least to scrutinize these bills before they come to this house.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Broadview is about seventy-five per cent socialist when he suggests that if this field is still open some move should be made by the government to set up some supervisory machinery to give the government some control over it. This bill is all right; it is innocent-looking enough; the capitalization is not too great.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a million dollars.

Private Bills


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but when you have become accustomed to talking about billions during the war this seems like small change.
My second objection is this. There is enough protection in Canada today through similar organizations to this in the field that this particular company wishes to enter. There are enough insurance companies of this kind in Canada at the present time. It is time that the government did as they did in Saskatchewan and said that from now on we are going to set up government machinery so that we shall know something about the internal operations of these companies. It is time that we set up government competition with the privately owned companies that are today handling insurance.
Instead of setting up another new company and putting a lot of agents in the field selling insurance and collecting premiums and high-pressuring people into buying insurance, we should see that the men who would be engaged in that work be routed into some gainful occupation in this country. We talk about taxes and about social services and all that kind of thing. Often, when sitting here listening to hon. members I get the idea that some hon. members think there is a mysterious pool of wealth somewhere into which the government can reach its arm-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: That kind of talk comes from the Liberal members and the Tory members. Read some of your election manifestoes and the promises you have made.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Talking subsidies.


Clarence Gillis: That mysterious pool of wealth does not exist. It all comes out of production.


An hon. MEMBER:: Of the worker.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; he produces it all. I do not think it is necessary to put a few hundred more men into this insurance field, men who could be routed into some occupation in this country where they would contribute to that pool of wealth. To set up this kind of a company would be a waste of manpower and a duplication of machinery already existing. High-pressure salesmen and all that kind of thing are overdone in this country at the present time. I would suggest very respectfully through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who is piloting this bill through the house that he take this thing back, look it over and advise the other place that we think this field is adequately serviced at the present time. If, after an examination of the bill by the government, we find that it is necessary to
set up any more organizations of this kind we will do it under government supervision so that the people of the country may have some protection.
Motion (Mr. Rinfret) agreed to on division. THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS
Mr. PAUL E. COTE (Verdun) moved the second reading of Bill No. 174, to incorporate the Canadian Association of Optometrists.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle underlying this bill is exactly the same as that of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association which was read a second time a few moments ago. I may say that optometry is perhaps the youngest profession we have in Canada, since it has existed as a body only since the beginning of this century. The first incorporation that can. be found in any provincial statute dates back to 1904. That was the statute which incorporated the Quebec Association of Optometrists. In 1909 by letters patent the Ontario association was incorporated. Since then, each and all of the provincial associations have become organized by provincial statute to regulate the admission to and the practice of optometry within their borders. In 1934 the nine provincial associations gathered together and decided to form a national body, and this is the bill to incorporate the optometrists of Canada in a national body under the name of the Canadian association of optometrists. I do not think there is much more that I can say at this time. It would be more in order to wait until the committee stage to give any particulars on the sections of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: Here is a bill which is not by the widest stretch of the imagination a federal bill or for the general advantage of Canada. This bill and the veterinary bill were objected to in the Ontario legislature for the reasons I have given. These bills were first introduced in another part of this building, and without any discussion they are sent over here. There was practically no discussion at all. As I said before, this is becoming a racket. That is exactly what it is. The House of Commons is ignored by it. If these people want to come here over the heads of the legislatures where they belong, with both the veterinary bill and the other one, I wish to object.
Why should we have a federal organization on veterinary affairs and on optometry? There is no necessity for it; there is no demand for it. Who is asking for this bill? What are the provinces that are asking for the Canadian association of optometrists? Not a province has asked for it. We are going very far afield
Private Bills

when the House of Commons is used, as it is, to consider bills such as these which are purely provincial matters, relating to provinces. Some of these bills will be attacked in the law courts. We have no power under section 91 of the British North America Act to incorporate such societies.
Look at this bill. It was passed by the senate on March 22. If you look at it you will find that there was no discussion at all. They just passed it the way they pass other bills over there. I can tell you something about that. There is a widespread public demand in this country today to do something about the other end of this institution of parliament. It is costing the country $600,000 a year, and what value we get out of it I do not know.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member must discuss the bill and not the other place.


Thomas Langton Church: I am speaking now, Mr. Speaker, on the bill itself, Bill No. C-5 of the senate. We may not be able to say anything about the other institution of parliament. They are here today and gone tomorrow. The way they are passing some of these bills is, however, becoming a racket. Look over this particular bill and what do you find? This is an act to incorporate an association that is a purely provincial body. Where does the medical profession come in under this bill? I venture to say I would not go to any of these people if I had eye trouble. We had large "I's" this afternoon in every bill we considered, large "C's", and so on. Here, however, they refer to the city of Winnipeg with a small "c" and the same in the case of Toronto.
I do not know what the principle of this bill is. The principle of a bill is in the title of the bill; it is in the preamble; it is in the marginal notes; it is in every section of the bill. The law courts so declare, and so do the textbooks. How, then, can one discuss the principle of a bill without reference to its individual provisions. Here is this bill referring to the city of Lethbridge, the city of Toronto, and the city of Montreal with a small "c".


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is discussing the clauses of the bill and he should not do so at this time. He must confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: Technically, sir, you are correct, but it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. You will notice that there is a small "c" for the city of Montreal. That is my point. I would ask Your Honour

to look at the bill. You are a distinguished lawyer. Here they have "city of Winnipeg" and city is spelled with a small "c".


William Ross Macdonald: I must insist that the hon. member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill. If he objects to certain clauses he can raise his objections at the proper time.


Thomas Langton Church: That may be so, Your Honour, but here we have the city of Toronto spelled with a small "c". That is what I object to.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have informed the hon. member that he is out of order in discussing the sections of the bill at this time. Once more I would ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill and to refrain from discussing the clauses.


Thomas Langton Church: Correct again, Your Honour. But I submit that a member of the House of Commons has a right to discuss any bill that comes before us and we cannot do so in the haphazard manner in which this bill is drawn up. I am referring to the preamble. They do not know grammar in another part of this building. A small "s" would be better for them. I should like to discuss the principle of the bill, but I am almost afraid to say anything about the bill at all, because I cannot discuss the principle. In fact, there is no principle in this bill. I have never seen a principle in any bill coming from the other end of the building. If you ask me, the bill is not within the purview of parliament. There is no demand for it. Has any university asked for it? No. If that is the way you want to pass the bill, very well, pass it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). He said that this association had not been a success in any province, that no provincial organization of the kind had been a success. Let me tell him that, as far as the optometrists' association of Ontario is concerned, it has proved itself and is undoubtedly a success.
The hon. member said he would never go to an optometrist and he did not think anyone else in this house would. I have never gone to anyone but an optometrist, and I guarantee that over 50 per cent of the members of the house who wear glasses are also patrons of optometrists.
I am sick and tired of sitting here hour after hour listening to a lot of cheap talk, and that is the reason I do not get up oftener myself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Bell Telephone Company


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to reflect upon all the members of this house.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, except to express my conviction that this is a good bill. It is for a good organization and it should not be held up any longer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this bill. My deskmate, who was speaking when the debate was adjourned last Friday, is unfortunately unable to be here tonight and I should like to continue for a few minutes what he really intended to say.
The first fact that strikes one on looking into this bill is the tremendous amount of money that is involved. I do not understand why so much money is needed. Perhaps one of the things that attracted my attention to the bill in the first place was the speech of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mae-Nicol) and the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), men who have spent a lifetime in the public service and who, when it comes to transportation, hydro, communications, and even irrigation take second place to no one. I have been greatly impressed by what these hon. gentlemen had to say. The hon. member for Davenport told about the poor service they get in the city of Toronto.
The bill has been pretty well discussed. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) pointed out the manner in which the company had divided up the shares, a thing that always creates suspicion in the minds of the rank and file when one sees a large company doing such a thing.
I do not understand why a bill like this, so important to the whole dominion, should not be brought in by the government instead of being left to be introduced by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret).


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Because it is a private company.


William Scottie Bryce: The hon. member for Outremont has my sympathy in being asked to sponsor a bill like this one.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: You mean that with your help it will be better?


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Do not feel sorry for a lawyer.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Do not feel sorry for a
person introducing a bill like this.


William Scottie Bryce: I was going to say, when I was interrupted by the independent member, that the bill should have been brought in by the government. I think that was the right and proper thing to do. When a company's capital is to be increased from $150,000,000 to $500,000,000, that is something which should be done on the floor of this house so that we can get into it. The C.C.F. brought in an amendment that would send the subject matter to the committee so that we could ask what the money was for, so that we could bring before the committee the people who are building the Bell Telephone Company today-the main people, the subscribers-and see if they are getting the service to which they are entitled.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That can be done in the railway committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After the principle is adopted.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, after the principle is adopted.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No. That is not so with a private bill.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, it is.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, it is not.


William Scottie Bryce: The hon. member has his views about this and I have mine. I am sorry he has this job to do. I am sorry for him.


John Lambert Gibson: He is doing all right.


William Scottie Bryce: I have supported public
ownership most of my life. I think the telephone system should be under public ownership, and the service should be given at cost because it is something that every individual can use. When you stop to figure this out, you find that power is to be given to a private company to bring its capitalization up to $500 million. By giving that power, you are only helping to build up a great private monopoly. No doubt the greatest weakness in the free enterprise system today is the tendency for private companies to grow into monopolies.
The Bell Telephone Company now has a capitalization of $150,000.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: $150 million.
Bell Telephone Company


William Scottie Bryce: I get mixed up in this, Mr. Speaker, because I have never been accustomed to talking in figures like that. I understand that the Bell Telephone Company was started or incorporated in 1880. The capital allowed was $1,000,000 at that time. In 1884 the capitalization was raised to $2,000,000. In 1892 it was again raised to $5,000,000. In 1902 it was advanced to $10,000,000. In 1906 they were allowed to increase the capitalization to $30,000,000. In 1920 the capitalization was increased to $75,000,000 and, in 1929, to $150 million. Now we have this bill asking that the capital be increased to $500 million which seems to me to be out of all proportion. Had they asked for $100 million or something reasonable, it would be different. But when they ask for $500 million, I do not know what to make of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: They might as well take over the national debt.


William Scottie Bryce: I should have liked to know what they are going to use that money for.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Let the bill go to the committee.


William Scottie Bryce: I have been thinking this matter over since it has been debated in the house. I wonder if this money is for the purpose of allowing them to by-pass the provincial telephones, in some way for the Bell Telephone Company to be able to dictate to the provincial governments in the prairie provinces? Had we been able to go to committee, I could ask that question. I cannot get any answer to it today. The hon. member who is sponsoring the bill does not say whether that is so or whether it is not. If that is the case, that the Bell Telephone Company is getting this money so as to put a direct line through the United States in order to by-pass the prairie provinces, it is a shame if this government or this parliament should give it authority to get that money.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I explained why it was. Read my speech.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to know if it is for that purpose.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Read my speech.


William Scottie Bryce: You tell me if it is for that purpose.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: The hon. gentleman does not say whether it is or is not for that purpose, so I take it for granted that my suspicion is well founded.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker tells me not to answer.


William Scottie Bryce: A most reliable publication is Moody's. I looked up Moody's and the Lehigh railway operates 1,254 miles of railway track, the main line extending from New York to Buffalo. The last statement I could find in Moody's was that the capitalization was $170,000 per mile of track, which would give an over-all capitalization of $225 million. Most hon. members have seen that railway. They have a capitalization of only $225 million. Yet this company is asking for $500 million. Again I cannot help but regret that we have not had an opportunity to find out what this money is for. I think the telephone should be one of the public services, the same as our hydro and transportation lines. Businesses such as these should be run as a service, at cost, and should not be used for private gain. The telephone is a necessary service to the people and should be operated for the good of all. A bill like this asking for large sums of money for capital expansion should not be brought in by a private member but by the government and should be given far more serious consideration than we have the opportunity of giving it here. My main objection to the bill is that it will create for this company a monopoly of a public service, namely, the telephone service.


Edward George McCullough: 
John Lambert Gibson: Does the transport board not have jurisdiction in those matters?


Edward George McCullough: This is the only time we as members of parliament have jurisdiction over the matter, and I think it is our duty to investigate all the ramifications. I am not quite sure as to the powers of the board of transport commissioners; but, as I said during the debate on freight rates, I am not any too pleased with the report of that board and its decision to permit that freight rate increase. So I am convinced that we as members of parliament have a real duty to perform in doing the best we can to make sure that our people get the best possible service at the lowest possible cost.
As the hon. member for Broadview has indicated, this bill went through the other place with practically no discussion at all. I do not think that is what should be done here.
I believe we should try to get all the information we can; but, despite the attempts of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and others who have tried to get information from the sponsor of this bill, as yet we have not been given any information which would warrant us in approving an increase of over 230 per cent in the capitalization of a company of this kind. We have done our best to get that information. On April 9 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved an amendment in these words:
That Bill No. 8, letter C of the senate, he not now read a second time-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The motion referred to by the hon. member has been dealt with by the house, and the hon.. member should not deal with it again.


Edward George McCullough: Very well, Mr. Speaker; but we did have a motion that this bill be referred to a special committee of the house where all available information could be given, so that we might know what we were doing, and that motion was turned down.
With respect to over-capitalization, here we have a company which already has an authorized capital of $150,000,000, and has not as yet used that to the full extent, since they still have available some $13,336,700. I think it is unreasonable for them to come to us and ask for authority to expand their capitalization to such an extent until they show that they are going to build certain lines, or that they are
Bell Telephone Company


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is always 21 per cent. It is a straight percentage.


Edward George McCullough: The percentage remains the same. I am not saying it increases the percentage of the dividend; but it does this: it gives the impression to anyone reading the financial statement of the company that it is getting a return of only 21 per cent, to which no one would take exception because it is quite reasonable, whereas in many instances the actual return is 10, 15 or 20 per cent.
In my discussion I am not in any way reflecting upon the personnel or directors of the Bell Telephone Company; I want to assure the house of that. I think they have a fine group of directors, even though six of the sixteen sit on the boards of chartered banks

in Canada. At the same time I would say that what I am criticizing is the principle of the bill. We have had too much of this sort of thing in Canada. Since I have come to the House of Commons I have noted the growth of monopolies in this country. I have seen our fertilizer industry sold down the river, so that our people have had to pay more money, to the extent of millions of dollars. It was sold to the American Cyanamid people for a mere song. I have seen our Trail and Calgary fertilizer plants sold down the river in the same way.
Again, I do not challenge the integrity or the ability of the men in control of those companies. I know some of them, and I believe they are fine gentlemen; at least those of them whom I know. But what I say is this, that we are here as representatives of the people to look after the people's welfare. And when we find1 a monopoly, such as we now have in connection with fertilizers, and as we shall have in the Bell Telephone system, there is no assurance that our people will get, at reasonable prices, either the service or the goods they need. It is that to which I take exception.
In the past we have seen some of the actions of this company. We have found that in the company's history they have divided their shares and handed them out-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They have not.


Edward George McCullough: -to their stockholders at a nice profit. I wish to say light here that the history of the stock issues shows that the company hav.e been making a regular practice of issuing stock to their shareholders at a par of $100 a share when it was listed and selling on the exchanges at market prices 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 75 per cent and in the instance of the year 1899, 93 per cent higher than its par value.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the hon. member reading from?


Edward George McCullough: From a record of the company's past history.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: From what? A newspaper?


Edward George McCullough: The whole thing boils down to this, that here we have a principle involved where we are asked to permit a tremendous over-capitalization. We must realize that it is asking quite a bit to ask the House of Commons to allow capitalization of a company to the extent of more than 100 per cent of its present capitalization.
I do not refer now particularly to this bill, but I say that as a principle we in the House of Commons should give expression to the idea

Bell Telephone Company
that no company at any time should be granted a capitalization 100 per cent over and above its present capitalization.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Canada will be a big country in fifty years.


Edward George McCullough: Yes, but it would not be if some of these people had control of it. I know about it, because I have had experience in Saskatchewan. Under private enterprise, where would our lakes, rivers and mines be?
In conformity with what I have said, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 8 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house no company should ask parliament for an increase in authorized capital in excess of one hundred per cent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: One hundred per cent of what? Complete the resolution. The resolution means nothing.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) has already spoken. I doubt if it is competent for him to second this motion.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I second it.


William Ross Macdonald: Then it is seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that hon. members have a full and free opportunity to discuss the principle of this important legislation, before we are asked to vote upon it. In view of the fact that the sponsor of the Dill was not prepared immediately to deny the suspicion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), I believe all members of the house should take further time to consider what is involved.
In view of the fact that the prairie provinces have made large investments in the telephone systems in their respective provinces, at a time when corporations such as the Bell Telephone Company were not interested in extending lines into these unprofitable areas of Canada, I believe it would be a great pity if a near-monopoly, such as the Bell Telephone Company, which might be anxious to make conditions more difficult for the publicly owned organizations, were authorized to construct new lines across the United States which might by-pass the provincial telephone systems and thereby deprive them of large amounts of revenue which normally they would receive.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On a point of order, there is no intention on the part of the Bell Telephone Company either to buy or to acquire the three telephone systems on the prairies, and there is no intention of putting a wire or a line across the United States.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The question was not that of purchasing the-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That was the question which was put.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the hon. member for Outremont has given us the assurance-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hour reserved for private bills having expired, we shall revert to the business before six o'clock.



PRIVILEGE


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I understand that during the debate on one of the private bills the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) referred to me. He did not mention any names, but that was the reference. I can tell him once and for all that I never have been a nodder and a yes man in this house on these private bills. If he wishes to be, let him be one. I am fed up too.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: When the house rose for recess we were considering section 1.


Clarence Gillis: When the house rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Vancouver South had suggested an amendment to this bill. If the minister is about to propose that amendment I shall reserve what I have to say until I hear him.


Milton Fowler Gregg: At six o'clock we were discussing the point of the continuing authority for the consideration of these cases which may be left after the board is disbanded. The suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South has been studied. My colleague will move this amendment, that we delete all the words after the word "to" in the thirteenth line and substitute the following: a committee of at least three officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs who shall exercise
War Service Grants Act

and perform such powers, duties and functions in accordance with the rules of procedure to be made by the governor in council.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: In effect that sets up a departmental board of at least three senior officials.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Who would be full-time officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: That seems satisfactory.


Mr. CARDIFF:: What classes of cases would come under this?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The same class of cases, if they exist, as have been dealt with by the existing board to which the bill refers.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would a man who has applied for a pension come under this?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, this is Bill No. 47, to amend the War Service Grants Act. As was explained this afternoon, the amendment grants authority to disband the board as soon as its task is finished, which will be in the reasonably near future. This has nothing to do with pensions or veterans allowance, but rather with a study of the records of men to see whether they are qualified for rehabilitation benefits.


Clarence Gillis: I am not so sure that I am quite satisfied with this arrangement. I remember very well the difficulty we had in having this board set up in the first place, and I have had considerable to do with it since it was set up. I want to pay tribute to that board. It is one section of the Department of Veterans Affairs which has performed yeoman service in a very difficult field. At the end of the war a large number of Canadian service personnel came back with misconduct discharges, in many cases for a very slight infraction of military rules and regulations, for which they were penalized severely. A misconduct discharge meant a stigma on a man for the rest of his life and militated against his securing employment. In addition many of them were fined and lost their pay and gratuity. We did not argue that they should be paid gratuity for the days or months they may have spent in confinement, but we did think that the gratuity should be paid for the period of actual service. That was not the case when the war ended and we brought the matter up in the house and in the veterans affairs committee. I was particularly active in the matter myself because I had a number of these cases on my hands. Ultimately the board was set up.
I Mr. Gregg.]
I agree with the minister that there is a saturation point in this kind of thing and that there may not be any longer the necessity of maintaining a full-time organization. But the board the minister is going to set up will consist of three or four or five officials of the department who already have a full-time job, and to whom this will be a sideline. They will be somewhat in the position of a broker in the city of Toronto who is also a member of parliament but whose mind is mostly on his private business rather than on the business here. Similarly the officials of the department will have their own specific work to do in the department, and this other work will be a sideline to them. I should like to know from the minister, before we pass this amendment, how many misconduct discharges there were, how many applications were made to the board, how many were granted and how many refused. Then we shall have some idea of the number still to be dealt with. I believe there is still a large number who have not made application for the gratuity which I think will be coming to them under the changes made in the War Service Grants Act.
I also want some assurance from the minister that this board will actually function, so that we shall not be writing to someone who is on some other job in some other place, but. will be back in a week or next month to answer your letter. If the minister can give us that information I would very much appreciate having it, because I am not prepared to disband the present board until I am reasonably sure that there is not sufficient work to keep them employed for some time to come.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This afternoon I gave the number of applications dealt with. I have not the figures here at the moment. The total number now remaining to be dealt with is 458, and it is our intention that the board or a quorum of the existing board shall continue to deal with all those 458 cases. We desire to continue the facilities for dealing with cases, because new evidence may be brought in regarding any of the 2,844 applications which were refused out of the whole Canadian naval, land and air forces. If any further evidence comes in which might mitigate their record the committee would take that into consideration.


Mr. BROOKS:: Was any time limit set on making application?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I very much approve this bill. If the functions of the board are about

War Service Grants Act
completed it would be an unnecessary expense to continue it. There were some 5,000 or more cases before the board, I understand; is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There were 5,055 granted and 2,844 refused. Of course the remaining 458 cases in which a decision has not yet been given have to be studied.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was not in the house before six o'clock, when perhaps this information was given. Is there any appeal from the board's decision?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If, after the end of the board's work, new evidence should come to light regarding any one of these cases, that evidence will be considered by this continuing committee, if this bill passes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I presume there would be a chairman of the committee. Will there be any remuneration for the other members?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, there will be no additional pay for this committee. While I would not want this to be taken as final, I think the obvious choice for the chairman of the committee would be the deputy minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think that arrangement would be very satisfactory.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Under this committee which it is proposed to establish by the amendment to this bill, will the permanent force officers who have been cashiered and lost their long service pension, or members of the permanent forces and other ranks who had also lost their long service pension through some default, be able to present their case and the new evidence required to this committee?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; the board, under the original act, had authority to deal only with gratuities and re-establishment credits.


Mr. PEARKES:: I presume that the numbers given by the minister referred to men who have already been discharged from the service. There may possibly be some men who are still liable to be discharged from the service with an unsatisfactory discharge certificate. I do not know if there are still men carried on the strength of the forces who are classified as deserters. We must remember that, after world war I, deserters were declaring that they were deserters for many years afterwards. How many of these cases are those which the board may have to consider? In other words, how many men are there in Canada who were deserters from the forces and have not been brought to trial or have not declared themselves as deserters? How many
men are there still in prison as a result of crimes, and therefore have perhaps not yet been discharged from the service?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The main questions asked would apply to the Department of National Defence. My department deals, of course, only with men and women when they become veterans. If a man is in prison he is still under the control of the Department of National Defence.
In reply to the first question I can say this. If such a man were discharged with such a record now and application were made the existing board would study that case as it has these others and decide upon it. If it should be later, if the board were disbanded, then this committee, if this amendment passes, would be clothed with exactly the same power and authority to study that case and deal with it as though the board had actually been studying it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize that, but I am trying to ascertain how much work the board will have to do. Are there many such cases?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot give the exact number tonight.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 60, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister give an explanation of this bill before it is given second reading?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill to amend the Veterans Insurance Act is to extend and clarify the eligibility section of the act. This amendment is the first amending legislation that has been proposed since the act came into effect on February 20, 1945.
The original act provided for the approval of applications within three years after discharge or three years after the coming into force of the act. This bill provides for an extension of the period to six years. This will be of value especially to veterans who are still under treatment, or whose health at present will not permit their acceptance for insurance.
There are also veterans who are, or who have been, under training, and others who
Veterans Insurance Act

have been unable, for various reasons, to rehabilitate themselves financially, and they will welcome this extension. In addition there will be certain United States veterans who served in the Canadian forces who have been training under their G.I. bill of rights, and eventually they will be able to purchase veterans insurance with the remaining portion of their re-establishment credit.
The bill provides a revised and clarified definition of classes eligible to contract for insurance, and includes statutory provision for members of the permanent force and certain merchant seamen who originally qualified under ol der in council passed under emergency legislation, which has now expired. The bill will extend the benefits of the act to merchant seamen who qualified to receive a war service bonus. It excludes one small class, the dependent parents of deceased members of the forces, or persons standing in the place of parents. It was not intended that they should be eligible, but the phrasing of the act was found not clear, and this amendment includes a clarification of that.
Widows of members of the forces who died on service have previously qualified as pensioners. It is considered advisable to provide specifically that these widows shall qualify as widows, as do the widows of those who died after discharge. The class of pensioners will now include only those in receipt of a disability pension. _
The bill provides a clarification of wording in several places; there is also a retroactive feature which will avoid any break in the period of eligibility.
The total amount of veterans insurance issued to March 31, 1948, was 19,280 policies for $55,353,500 worth of insurance. There are some 211 applications now pending for $509,000 worth of insurance from veterans whose period of eligibility has already expired and, if this amendment is passed, who would become eligible.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Several of these amendments to which he has referred do not appear in the bill as it has come from the senate. Is it the proposal that different amendments will be offered in this house, or just where do we find these other changes?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I can defer that if I might move that the bill be referred to the committee on veterans affairs.


Howard Charles Green: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should know how the government proposes to make these various changes. Several of them, for example the six-year provision and the provision for widows, do not seem to be in this bill at all.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was proposed to bring forward certain amendments ait the committee stage.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's explanation, then, covers several matters that are not yet before the house. Might we have a list of the proposed changes?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not the list as a list, but it will be found in my introductory statement in Hansard.


Clarence Gillis: I feel somewhat as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) does. We are dealing now with the principle of the bill and with that principle we can agree. It is a matter of clarification, changing some of the wording and extending the provisions of the act to personnel who are not included in the present measure. Before the bill goes to the committee, I should like to see the proposed amendments.
I have every confidence in the veterans affairs committee; but, the minister's explanation notwithstanding, I would ask why, for example, there is a change from the word "insured" to "applicant". I am not going to read the section; but it gives the minister, if he so desires, the right to subject any applicant to a medical examination, whereas the whole purpose of veterans insurance was to give insurance to service personnel w-ho could not pass a medical examination.
As I understood the old bill, the word "insured" was used w'here the word "applicant" now appears. That is a matter of definition and I am sometimes afraid of legal definitions. Who is the insured under the old act? I suggest that the insured is the beneficiary. That is the person who is really insured, the person who receives the benefits which the insurance carries. I believe there would be a good deal of difficulty in the exercise of the powers granted the minister now with respect to medical examination. If this wording is used, then when, the person applying makes application for this insurance, the minister, if he so desires, can instruct the departmental officials to have every applicant for this insurance subjected to a medical examination.
I am afraid somebody behind the scenes is getting smart and taking the competition in this field away from the old line insurance companies. I am apprehensive of that particular change and I should like to have it thoroughly explained. The minister is perfectly honest, and, I am sure, has not in mind what I am suggesting at the present time, but there is a lot of intrigue and manipulation in matters of this kind in a structure of society

Veterans Insurance Act
which is based upon profits. They 'do not like to see growing up in the country in government circles anything that may be interfering with that particular field.
There are a large number of service personnel in the country today. It is a good insurance field; and I want to be assured that the business of having the applicant insured under the legislation will not involve his being subjected to a medical examination, because, if he is, that defeats the whole purpose of veterans insurance.
If the minister has an explanation to give as to why the word "insured" is being changed to "applicant", with the powers given the minister under that particular section, I wish he would give it because I am a little bit afraid of it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am in perfect agreement with the principle of the bill and, as I listened to the minister's explanation of the proposed amendments, I would be in agreement with the amendments. I agree with what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, except his definition of "insured". I do not altogether agree with that.
Before we consider this bill, the amendments should be before us. I suggest that the bill be not now read the second time. It might be referred to the veterans affairs committee as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). We cannot consider it intelligently in the house at the present time without having the amendments before us.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I would support the view expressed by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), inasmuch as we are being asked to give second reading to a bill which is incomplete. I think it is wrong to expect the house under the circumstances to approve even by second reading. In my opinion the matter should be stood over until we have the amendments to which the minister has referred and which it is difficult to follow by simply hearing them. We should have them completely before us when we are asked to give second reading to the bill.
In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I do not think any of the old line life insurance companies will be greatly interested. They are anxious to write insurance, it is true; but I should like to point out. and I think it is a tribute to these insurance companies, that there are hundreds of veterans who are salesmen for the old line companies and they are making good in the majority of cases. This is a risk they could underwrite and I think that was intended by veterans insurance. I hope that no part of that phase will be changed in the present act.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that the minister is going to make certain amendments to the bill. May I suggest that when the amendments are being considered the inequality which exists, regarding the terms upon which a veteran may obtain insurance, as to those who joined the forces between April 1, 1946, and February 7, 1947, be removed.
According to the bill as it now stands, a man who joined the forces prior to the 1st of April, 1946, will have three years to make up his mind as to whether he wants to take out insurance or not. The man who joined the forces after February 7, 1947, will also be given three years to make up his mind. The man who joined between April 1, 1946, and February 7, 1947, will have only just over two years to decide.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): May I suggest to the minister that the bill be not now read a second time but that, the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs. Then the proposed amendments could be submitted and the whole bill discussed. It would be much more satisfactory to have it done that way rather than to pass the bill now without knowing what the amendments are to be.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I support the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I do not think that if we gave the bill second reading and went into committee of the whole on it, and if the amendments which the minister has suggested were then introduced, we would be able to pass those amendments, because they introduce a new subject matter which is not in the bill to which we would be giving second reading. Under the circumstances, the only thing we can do is to refer it to the committee.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): I do not wish to speak to the bill, but I suggest to the house that they be careful if they want the bill to carry when we consider the amendments. I am of the opinion that, if carried, they would kill the bill. The bill would have to be reintroduced and then given first reading, and I do not know whether that can be done. I think it would be much better to leave the second reading over until the members have the bill before them. That is the usual way. Then there would be no danger of throwing out the legislation which, after all, is highly desirable legislation.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Following what the last speaker has said, may I point out that the motion that the bill be not read now but that it be referred to a committee in order that the subject matter
Veterans Insurance Act

might be considered is a well-established way of giving the bill the hoist. There is some real doubt in my mind, and I think there would be in the mind of the house, whether or not, under the circumstances, it would be possible to deal with the subject matter of the present bill again this session.


Howard Charles Green: Of course nobody wants to kill the bill.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I know that. I am quite sure 'that no one does. I think the house ought to bear in mind that this bill comes to us in its present form from another place. Naturally it has been the subject of study by the department and the officials of the department. The minister, in his brief introduction to the bill tonight, indicated that the department are in fact prepared to go farther than the recommendations which have been included in the bill in that other place.
The question for us to decide at the moment is whether or not the house desires to take the minister's statement of what he proposes to do, let the bill go to second reading and debate and accept or disregard these further recommendations in the committee, or to defer second reading. It seems to me that there is no particular advantage in either procedure, beyond the fact that we dispose of the bill and get it into the hands of the most interested parties if we let it go to second reading. There can be no serious objection to delay.


William Ross Macdonald: Does it meet with the approval of the house to give the bill second reading on condition that it will be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Just before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that there is no sinister motive in the wording. It is for clarification. I think the procedure which has now been suggested will be a helpful one. Quite a long time ago, early in the session, this bill was passed through another place; and as it came to this house, I should have made note that the introductory remarks I was making covered those things already in, and also those things that we wanted to get in; and that the bill will be amended in accordance with the statement I made in the beginning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act by extending the allowance provisions in respect to persons coming under the provisions of the act.
Howard Charles Green: May we have a statement from the minister?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The resolution before the house, Mr. Speaker, is one dealing with amendments to the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. Certain anomalies and conflictions have occurred in the experience with that act since it first came upon the statute books, and in some respects these amendments are to correct those anomalies and conflictions which are based upon the experience of the department.
The bill-if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, so to refer to it at this stage-will provide for the payment of allowances to veterans on behalf of children who are in the process of adoption. It will also provide for payment of an allowance where an illegitimate child of a veteran's wife is maintained by the veteran. Items such as these are taken up in the amendments.
Provision is contained in the oncoming bill to provide compensation to veteran trainees who received a disability from accidents which occurred during the course of their training subsequently to August 31, 1946. For example, one veteran suffered injury during his training prior to this date and is becoming blind as a result of the accident. The amendments proposed will take care of such cases prior to that date and will cover all cases of injury incurred during training, under the provisions of either the post-discharge re-establishment order or the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
It has been ruled that an individual who enlisted during the war and remained with the permanent force and is finally discharged ten or twenty years hence will be eligible under the present legislation to apply for benefits under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. I am told, Mr. Speaker, that that is something which was not in any way intended when the original act was passed; and from reading of the records I believe that is so. That will be corrected.
The intent of the act was to provide assistance for veterans on discharge from their war service. The proposed amendments in the

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
bill will provide that veterans of the permanent force will be deemed to have been discharged or retired from the forces as of September 30, 1947, which is in accord with order in council P.C. 2372 of June 17, 1947, whereby the armed forces ceased to be on active service after September 30, 1947.
Certain limitations are provided in the act which prevent desirable transfers from vocational training to university training, and the other way around. Perhaps this will be the most important feature of the legislation coming forward under this resolution. Cases have been brought to the attention of the department where these restrictions work a hardship on the veteran in his efforts to complete his rehabilitation. The oncoming amendments will permit transfers to take place for those who have discontinued training within six months of the coming into force of this amending legislation and for those now in training within six months from the date that they discontinued their present courses.
Also veterans who are receiving university training, including pre-matriculation courses leading up to university training, are debarred from the benefits of the Veterans Land Act. In many cases, because of a change in objective, the veteran, after completing his pre-matriculation course, did not continue on to university as he originally intended. The proposed amendments restore to such veteran students eligibility to apply for benefits under the Veterans Land Act. Where a veteran has completed one academic year of not more than nine months at. a university, he is required to pay the allowances and other costs of such training prior to the restoration of his entitlement under the Veterans Land Act.
These proposed amendments bring into effect the results of the experience of the department during the past three years in the preparation of veterans for their careers in life. Quite often they came out of the services convinced that they knew exactly what they were going to do in life and the course they wanted to follow to prepare for that objective. They had counsellors within the service; they had counsellors within the universities and vocational schools; they had counsellors in the department. Sometimes they thought they were counselled to death. However, in the main the veteran himself or herself made the decision. Sometimes the counselling had effect; sometimes it had not. After they got under way for a few months in vocational or university or on the job training, they found that was not the field they should try to enter, and, under the original act there was a certain rigidity that
made it difficult for such a veteran to take the fork in the road leading, the department hopes, to the vocation which best fits his aptitude.
This resolution gives me an opportunity tc say a word about the training program for veterans made possible by the original rehabilitation act. The number of veterans who have received or are receiving or are about to receive training at universities now stands at upwards of 55,000. When I say "are about to receive" I mean including those who are now at pre-matriculation schools with the intention of going on to universities. Therefore, including those who have graduated, those who are in, those who intend and are preparing to go in, the figure is over 55,000 at present. The corresponding total with regard to vocational training is approximately 93,000.
These numbers do not by any means tell the whole story. For example, when the original act came into effect the universities were faced with a great opportunity and a great duty to provide university training for veterans, which brought total enrolments at those universities up to two, three and, in one case in the far west, four times the normal enrolment. The story of how that has been done is an interesting one. It is a story of co-operation between the universities and the federal government in a way that has been a source of great satisfaction to the universities and which has been very effective in behalf of the veterans whom they tried to serve by leading them into the proper courses and eventually to rehabilitation.
The word "rehabilitation" was, of course, the key word. It was intended to give the student an opportunity to find his way back to civil life, but I am glad to say it is meaning more than that, Veterans at our universities, as well as those taking vocational training, are getting a broadening of experience and education that will mean more than mere rehabilitation, important though that may be. The initiative taken by the university authorities is leaving nothing undone, even changing the whole set-up of their establishments, to fit into this plan has been commendable. One pleasant feature is that it is being done with the universities maintaining their time-honoured autonomy, yet preserving the most harmonious relations with this department on the many interlocking points of operation that have come up.
I could say more on that point, but the amendments being brought in come within that field of co-operation. When the plan for university work came into operation each institution worked out, under university authority, a counselling service. Some of these services
5849-195J
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

have grown to quite extraordinary dimensions and are now considered to be an important part of university work. It was to a great degree through that counselling, after the student veteran got under way, that this need for redirection of course became more apparent. All the universities operating under the plan have that system in effect now, and it has been possible for them to do that without interference by the department, while at the same time receiving from the department assistance under their supplementary grants making this possible.
The amendments being brought forward, providing as they do more flexibility in the early direction of courses, are a direct result of that work, and I am sure that the experience gained in this field by the universities will be of value long after the veteran period has passed, that it will be one of the useful byproducts. I could say much also about the task involved in working out the vocational training for the nearly ninety-five thousand veterans concerned.
In some cases, particularly in medicine and dentistry, the fees to the university plus the supplementary grant of $150 have exceeded the $500 which it will be remembered the act set as the maximum payable on behalf of the veteran in tuition fees. The ratio of costs of instruction in medicine and dentistry has increased to a greater extent than in practically all the other courses. As hon. members know, Canada is very short of medical men and dentists, and a great many veterans elected to take those courses. So an attempt is made here to see that no potential veteran doctor or veteran dentist does not take the course due to the fact that his tuition is more than $500. In other words, an attempt is made to have that tuition payable on his behalf.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw one matter, to the attention of the minister, because I feel it should receive the serious consideration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In many cases the overseas wives of Canadian veterans have refused to come to Canada. That amounts to desertion; yet the Canadian veteran has no redress in our courts, unless at great expense to himself he can prove adultery. The overseas wife of a Canadian veteran can get a divorce in England by proving desertion, but that divorce does not hold good in Canada. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I realize that divorces come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, with the exception of Quebec. I do feel, however, that the Department of Veterans Affairs should consider this problem seriously and take it up with the

provinces in an endeavour to correct what to me is an injustice to many of our veterans.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the minister correctly I believe the amendments we are introducing will remove rehabilitation grants from those men who have joined the permanent force of this country. If that is correct, it seems to me grossly unfair, because when a man decided to remain on in the active forces of this country, be they navy, army or air force, he would have been influenced by the fact that when his service engagement was terminated he would still be eligible to draw his rehabilitation grant.
If the amendment means that after he has joined one of the services the rehabilitation grant is to be taken away from him and that he is to be deprived of the opportunity of having that grant, then I think he has been grossly misled in being permitted to join the active force on the understanding that when his service terminated he would still be able to get his rehabilitation grant.
.1 hope, if my interpretation of the minister's statement is correct, that he will give the matter serious consideration, because it seems to me that a condition of that kind would be doing a gross injustice to those men who are still remaining on in the service of this country. Even if it is not possible for the minister to grant them their rehabilitation grants, perhaps at the time they have completed their pensionable service they should at least be given an opportunity of having their rehabilitation grants when they are asked if they wish to re-enlist in the services after the termination of their first enlistment.


Clarence Gillis: There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I hope, when the bill reaches the committee on veterans affairs, that some attention will be paid to the point raised by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard). I refer to divorce, as applied to service personnel, and the application of Canadian divorce laws as well as those of Great Britain. I have discussed this matter before and I shall not waste time on it this evening.
I have in mind another point which has not been discussed. I am thinking of the veteran who was discharged, went into some industry and probably remained there for eight months or a year. Then, at the end of that time he decided to take a course under the government's regulations. Completing his course, he found that he could not get a job, and as a result made application for unemployment insurance. However, he could not estab-

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
lish a benefit year and had not made the 180 contributions. Then he applies for his armed service credits, which are applicable in a case of this kind to any serviceman who did not take a course.
There have been quite a number of boys in the circumstances I have described who could not qualify, who could not get a job, and to whom armed service credits were not made available. I suggest that when the minister is discussing this bill in the veterans affairs committee that point should be considered. I believe there has been rank discrimination, and I have brought specific cases to the attention of the department. The legislation as it now stands does not take care of that kind of situation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the passage of the resolution for any length of time. The minister referred to university students and to vocational training and, I believe, made the suggestion that possibly some of these students have not been getting their training along lines best suited to them. His suggestion that a change should now be made is a good one.
There is another class of student to whom very little attention has been paid. I refer to children of veterans who were killed overseas or who were war casualties. I know it has been mentioned on other occasions in the house that these orphaned children should receive some sort of grant for educational purposes. I would refer again to the condition in the United States where, in different states of the union, they pay all the way from $150 to $300 a year as an educational grant for the education of orphans of deceased war veterans.
Has any consideration been given or will it be given to a grant of some kind for this purpose? I understand that to a great extent education comes within the control of the provinces, and perhaps that is why the matter has not been considered. I would ask, however, if any consideration has been given to that point. No doubt the minister will have an opportunity to reply when we are in committee on the resolution.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, there are two or three matters I should like to place before the minister and the house in connection with rehabilitation. As I understand it, this measure does not apply to veterans of the first world war. When I was in Vancouver during the Easter recess I found that there are some veterans of the first war around the age of
fifty years who could be benefited greatly by receiving vocational training of one kind or another. I have in mind training as gardeners. Apparently some of them have had that training and have been enabled to get jobs from which they are able to earn a living.
The minister's staff in Vancouver has no authority to give training of that kind to veterans of the first war. I imagine they are stretching the limits a bit, because of the great need of placing these men. I suggest that the minister should give consideration to extending the act to cover veterans of the first world war who could benefit by training of this type. If he will check up in his department I think he will find that that would be the recommendation of his own men who are on the spot and who are trying to place these older veterans.
Incidentally, in my opinion the staff in Vancouver-and I have no doubt the same condition obtains elsewhere-are doing a fine job in helping to place veterans of both the first and second world wars. They are keen about their job; they are enthusiasts, and I am sure it would help them if they were able to give some sort of training to this particular class of men from the first world war.
Another group I would mention is that of the merchant seamen. In his opening remarks the minister said nothing about extending the benefits of rehabilitation to the merchant seamen. My understanding is that the only benefits they can get now are by way of training for the sea. They can get vocational training to go to sea, but not otherwise. For example, they cannot get training at a university. As the house knows, our merchant marine is small in size, although it is a great deal larger than it was before the war. Yet it is so small, compared with its size during the war, that only a very small proportion of the men who served in the merchant navy could hope to carry on in that occupation in peacetime.
In effect, most of the men who served in the merchant navy can get no rehabilitation benefits, and I hope that the government has not closed the door on giving training to these men. This is not the time to repeat the submissions which have been made here in other sessions, and in fact this session, but I do hope that the door is not closed against these men.
The minister said nothing with regard to university students. The married students were given an increase of, I believe, $10 a month, but there was no increase whatever given to the single students, and the representations that I receive are to the effect that
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

$10 a month is still not sufficient to meet the requirements of the married men. The single men are getting in a worse position all the time. The cost of living has been going up steadily; the funds of these men are running lower and lower, and many of them are going deeper and deeper into debt. This is a situation which I believe must be met. It has not yet been adequately dealt with.
I have also had representations about the permissible earnings. The suggestion is made that these men should be allowed to earn more than 175 a month, which I believe is the figure at the present time, is it not? The suggestion is that they should be allowed to earn more than $75, and I suggest that under present conditions it would be wise to grant that permission. It does not need any amending legislation, since it can be done by regulation under the act. That would greatly ease .the situation.
1 would point out that in the United States just about two months ago veterans attending schools were given an increased allowance. I have here a press dispatch from Washington of February 14 last, which states that the United States has raised the monthly subsistence allowance for veterans without dependents from $65 to $75. In Canada I believe it is $60. The dispatch goes on to say that those with one dependent have had their allowance increased from $90 to $105, and those with two or more dependents, from $90 to $120, effective April 5.
I do hope that the minister will deal with these points when we get into committee. All of them are, I suggest, worthy of consideration, and I hope that provision can be made in the bill to meet them.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Percy Ellis Wright: I want to ask the minister a question writh respect to the rehabilitation grant. When a soldier writes in and asks for his .rehabilitation grant I understand that the department sends out a form for him to fill in. One applicant showed me this form. In I he lower corner was this stipulation which the applicant had to sign:
"It is not my intention to make application for vocational training or settlement under the Veterans Land Act." He had to sign that as well as the application form. But it was our understanding in the veterans affairs committee that accepting the rehabilitation grant did not prevent a man from, later on, repaying that grant and making application to come under the Veterans Land Act. These chaps were very much alarmed about this form. The form did not state that they could not, later

on, repay the rehabilitation giant, but it required them to state that they would not ask for settlement under the Veterans Land Act.
I have had complaints from veterans who have stated that the department had refused to accept repayment of their rehabilitation grant and to grant rehabilitation under the Veterans Land Act either on small holdings or on permanent farm holdings. I would ask the minister to explain just what the situation is in- that regard. It was our understanding in the veterans affairs committee that the rehabilitation grant could be repaid and application be made for settlement under the Veterans Land Act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps we might defer going into that in detail until the committee stage of the bill, but I think it has been understood through the counsellors in the regional offices of veterans affairs that these men could repay their re-establishment credits.
There are one or two points to which I might refer while on my feet. One was with regard to divorce. I am going to leave that to the veterans affairs committee. Like other members of that committee, I have run across difficult situations, and if a solution can be found I shall be as happy as anyone.
Referring to the point made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, I said a little while ago that my understanding of the purpose of the original rehabilitation act was to have the veteran re-established. As we stand now, it would appear to me that the permanent officer or soldier is re-established. If by any chance he is discharged now or next week or next year he will, of course, come under whatever remaining benefits there may be related to the last war, but twenty years from now one would expect that vocational training schools and university training plans and many of these other things which were built up definitely for re-establishment will have served their purpose. In addition there are parallel training plans, even in service, up to university level, also trade schools and matriculation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister give any idea as to the time? For instance, a man joins the forces, say on a three-year enlistment; will he be eligible at the end of his first term of enlistment for whatever benefits there are?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is designed for war veterans. Those who enlist for short term service now, for a three-year term, would not, I feel, be entitled to the benefits under this act.
Mr. PEARtKES: It may be the minister's impression that this means rehabilitation; but I suggest that the man who joined the active

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
forces believing that he would get these benefits at the end of his period of service considered 'that as part of his rehabilitation. He was going to rehabilitate himself by staying on in the service for a period of three years, at the end of which period he believed that he would have an opportunity of taking certain courses. He knew that when he first signed his enlistment there was great demand for those courses and that they would be crowded; whereas if he waited three years-it might now be only two years-he believed that he could get the course at the end of his first enlistment. I think that to deprive him of that opportunity now is grossly unfair to the man who joined up with that understanding or with that impression.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not propose to discuss the merits of that tonight, because it introduces quite a new principle. It is quite debatable. It is for the department creating a new army to say whether 'that should be done or not. Under this act which was designed for the rehabilitation of the veterans coming out of the war, it certainly was not the intention, when the act was passed, that it should be used for that purpose. If what my hon. friend suggests should be done it should be done under a completely new dispensation relating to the new army.


George Randolph Pearkes: I disagree. I feel that the man had to make a decision as 'to whether he would stay on in the active forces or not, and whether he would stay on perhaps for a period of his first enlistment which, as I say, is normally three years, realizing at the end of 'that time he would have an opportunity of having his rehabilitation grants. He decided to stay on, and now before that period of enlistment has been completed you are going to withdraw 'the rehabilitation grant. If that is the minister's intention I do not think it is at all fair to 'these men who made that decision with the belief that they would be entitled to these rehabilitation grants at the end of their enlisment.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I clarify what I said a moment ago? Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend. I was thinking of the eighteen year olds who may enlist now for three years; but I can see now that the hon. member refers to these veterans who served during the war and are going on for three years more. As they come out from month to month, they will certainly be entitled to such rehabilitation benefits as gratuities, reestablishment or Veterans Land Act benefits.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was the time not increased to three years for that particular purpose?


Milton Fowler Gregg: One of the amendments put forward in the insurance bill tonight was partly for that purpose as well as for veterans who were in hospital or in training.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The original rehabilitation grants were for a period of ten years from the cessation of hostilities or the discharge of the veteran or the transfer to the other service. Is not that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If I understood the hon. member for Nanaimo correctly I want to know, if the man leaves the service any time before that ten-year period has expired, whether all these rehabilitation credits which he has not used will be applied on application?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think you can wait ten years to apply for a university course. That is what the hon. member for Nanaimo was speaking about particularly. I think it was eighteen months, was it not? You cannot wait ten years for an educational course.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not the educational course; but his re-establishment credit and his gratuity would be available to such a man as the hon. member for Nanaimo suggests.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If he applies within ten years.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Up to the period of ten years, which is now laid down. A plan is being worked out, for instance, in the engineers where university officers in the engineers can complete their university training within the service. Furthermore, classes are being worked out for education of other ranks.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is an entirely different matter.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suppose I am going to be quite out of order. I have listened to some of the debate which has gone on, and I think this might be a constructive suggestion. We have quite a lot of difficulty at the present time in getting volunteers for the navy, army and air force. We are below strength. Under the circumstances today, Canada should do something to see that she is able to defend herself. My suggestion is that in Canada at the present time we should have universal volunteer training. I do not know what I should suggest as the length of time that we should have it. I suggest perhaps a year or a year and a half. During that year or a year and.a half we should have universal volunteer training. This is not conscription or anything like that. We should take into the navy, army and air force men who have finished their high school courses or perhaps those who have finished their first year course at the
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

university. I suggest to the minister, who knows something about education, that perhaps it is a wise thing to have a boy go to university for one year and then go out and earn his living and come back to university. That system would give him a better understanding of what earning a dollar means.
My suggestion is that we formulate some plan for the defence of Canada and that we give these boys, during the period of their voluntary training, schooling which will be equivalent to whatever year they are in in high school or matriculation or something like that. If they are in arts they could carry on the first year of arts or the first year of science. Give them something that will carry them along that year and make it worthwhile. It will take a lot of money, but if we do that we shall get the voluntary force which will be needed to defend Canada in case of necessity. I want to repeat that this is voluntary.
One of the main reasons I have for speaking about this matter tonight is this. We have the threat of communism on us in Canada today. What we must have in Canada as soon as we can get it, to combat any subservient activity which may come along, is loyal subjects. We must have people who voluntarily are willing to defend their country in time of trouble. I am not talking about having them voluntarily defend their country in time of war outside Canada. That goes without saying, because we know that every man, woman and child in this country, in the case of war, outside, would jump into the fray and defend Canada.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. The hon. member was quite correct in the statement that he would be out of order. What is before the committee at the present time is the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act by extending the allowance of provisions in respect to persons coming under the provisions of the act.
I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the resolution.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am making this suggestion-


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is not in order in discussing matters that are not before the committee at the moment. He admitted himself that he would be out of order. That is not the proper thing for the hon. member to do, to continue speaking when he knows he is out of order. I hope he will deal with the resolution.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The resolution is to extend vocational training. I think that is what it is.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member the resolution before him?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No.


William Henry Golding: I have read the resolution to the hon. member and I hope he will confine his remarks to it.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister deal with some of the matters raised while the Speaker was in the chair?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have just a few more words to say. I think I have made myself clear. I suggest that the act will probably need to be so framed as to take care of the points I have suggested. I think my idea is a good one, that in time of trouble we should have loyal people in the country. If, therefore, we have many of these men attracted into what I call voluntary universal training for one year-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -I think we shall have a good many loyal citizens.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to refer once more to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo. The limitation in the date of discharge is September 30, 1947, which applies only to those things in the Veterans Rehabilitation Act such as training. That is one which is tied in with that date. Then there are out-of-work allowances, allowance while temporarily incapacitated, and allowance while awaiting returns. There are others to which that date has no relation, such as gratuities. The member of the active army who served in this last war may get his gratuities at any time if he has not received them. That, therefore, is clear. Then there is the re-establishment credit. As it now stands, he may get it at any time within ten years from the date of discharge, or within ten years from January 1, 1945, whichever is the later. Then there is the Veterans Land Act, in respect of which at the present time there is no time limit. Does that answer the question?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will wait until I see the bill before answering that question.


Milton Fowler Gregg: On the point raised regarding student veterans at universities, I am not going to discuss that at any length, except to say that across Canada there is a great variation in costs just as there is a great variation in the thriftiness of the students

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
themselves. As I understood it-I may have been wrong-this plan was developed as an effective federal scholarship for veteran students. Let us take the maximum, or less than the maximum. The maximum tuition has been $500 and, if it is more now, it will be paid, but the average tuition across Canada is in the vicinity of $300. There is $60 a month for a normal eight months period, which is $480. So that the veteran has a scholarship of $300, plus $480, or $780, and that applies, whether he is single or married, to the veteran himself.
This increase was designed to assist the married veteran and to make it more possible for him as a married man to take care of his dependents. True, he did not have to get married, but to my mind it is a great advantage to the country that the young men who are at the universities are finding it in the main possible to get married and to have children; and I 'believe that when they come through with their war service and their university training, together with their initiation in domestic experience, they will be valuable citizens.
I know that in some parts of Canada, in the large centres, there is some hardship even yet for some individual married students, and there is as well, in some cases, for single students. The single student is able at this time of the year, or he will be in a few weeks' time, to reduce his expenses and his responsibilities. He can go and work for the whole summer. He can get work of some kind, quite often along the lines of his expected profession, and he is.able to return in the autumn with at least some surplus money to act as a backlog for the coming session at the university.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is more difficult this year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is more difficult for them to get the type of work that is closely related to their university training, but there is work that can be got which would enable the single man to make a good deal more than it will cost him to live. On the other hand, the married man has to retain an establishment somewhere, normally at the place which he has found, or which has been found for him, within the university precincts or within the university community. Failing this, he has to send his small family home, which costs money. It is a rare case in which the married student veteran can get through the long summer holiday with very much of a surplus for the coming year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What are the reports as to summer work for students this year? Will there be 100 per cent work obtainable, or what is the proportion?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have not had any definite reports in that regard and we shall not have until the holidays begin, 'because there is a great deal of last-minute employment. There is the closest possible co-operation between the labour department, through the employment offices across Canada, and the counselling service within the universities, which normally has, as a part of the service, a full-fledged employment bureau. The Department of Labour often has in the larger universities a full-time, or, in the smaller universities, a part-time representative meshed in with the university employment office, upon which normally the students' representative council has a quota of representatives. This assists in placing students.
There are sent from Ottawa through the employment offices of the Department of Labour to the universities lists of opportunities for summer employment. Instead of their being posted up casually, they are studied by the employment officers of the university and the students' representatives. The veterans affairs representative also has a part in the work with the Department of Labour. An attempt is being made to sort out the summer opportunities to fit the type of training the veteran student is taking, so that, if it is engineering he is taking, for example, he may get some kind of work related to engineering, and so on. I must admit that the opportunities in the applied science field are much greater than they are in the field of pure arts and science.


Howard Charles Green: What about the permissible earnings?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The permissible earnings still stand at $75 a month for the veteran. A married man may earn $75 a month and his wife may earn $75 a month. But those restrictions apply, of course, only while he is actually at the university, or approximately eight months a year. The reason this was set up was, I think, to assist the student to keep in mind the importance of what he was doing, that the task he was undertaking at the university had the topmost priority, that his work there under the assistance of the government was important and the help he received was intended to assist him to get his training in the shortest possible time, rather than that he should be employed in the town and that the university work should be of secondary consideration.
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

I should like to add one other factor and that is that for any veteran student, in an emergency, there is still available a loan to keep him, if he is a good student, from having to leave on account of financial shortage.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the students do not like to go into debt.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Nobody does.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there is a great reluctance among the students to incur indebtedness in order to finance their courses. Surely the department has control over the progress made by students. I think that is one of the features of the whole plan. If the veteran does good work, if he gets within a certain percentage or is fairly close to the top, he can get the benefit of a longer period than his service calls for. I think there is an effective check on the work being done by the students in universities. I doubt whether it is necessary to restrict the amount they may earn. In some cases the veteran or the veteran's wife might well be able to earn enough money to make it a great deal easier for the family to get by.
Another point is this. If this training is in the nature of a scholarship, there should be no ceiling placed on earnings. You do not say to a scholarship holder that he can earn only so much out of his university time. I cannot see why it should be necessary to impose these restrictions on earnings, and I would ask the minister to give some consideration to removing them.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to comment on that. I do not intend1 to do so in full at the present moment, because there will probably be another opportunity to do so. I should like to say that, on that point of the earnings and on every other point affecting the students at universities, my predecessor arranged for a university advisory committee to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, composed of the heads of representative universities, which met regularly every quarter, I think. All those points and more have been discussed by that committee. As I look over the record, I see that in the main, the point of view of that committee has been taken on this point as well as on many others.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the minister intend to permit representatives of the university students' federation to appear before the veterans affairs committee?


Howard Charles Green: He cannot stop them.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If the committee so wish, I have no objection.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is for decision by the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister say something with regard to training for veterans of the first war?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot say anything, except that it is not now included in the act. I should like to consider that further and discuss it at another time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the
minister a question with reference to a matter which was brought to my attention the other day. It has to do with a veteran of two wars who had two sons also serving, but who had served only, we will say, a year and a half or two years, not giving them time enough to complete a full university course. The representation which was made to me was that, where the father of these boys had served, they felt that the department should allow the time which he had earned for university training, and which, of course, he was not able to take on account of his age, to be passed along to his sons who had not earned sufficient time. I should like to have the minister's comment on that and see what he thinks of that proposition.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The proposition is not new. It has been suggested in other connections. But it has been decided, and I cannot see any other way around it, that the benefits under this act must be tied to the individual veteran and not transferred even to members of the family.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a final decision, is it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 200, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


William Henry Golding: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Next sitting of the house.


William Henry Golding: Next sitting of the house.

Canadian National Railways-Auditors



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10. respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the annual bill seeking the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. The firm of George A. Touche and Company, chartered accountants, with offices in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and other cities, have been appointed for the last number of years and have been doing the work of the Canadian National Railways with satisfaction. There are many advantages in having a continuous accounting of the affairs of the railways, and it would be inconvenient if the auditors were changed, because the work must be of a continuing nature. Again for the year 1948 this bill seeks the appointment of the same firm of auditors.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to draw the attention of the house to the debate that took place a year ago when a similar resolution was under consideration, during which the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) made what I considered a very reasonable argument with a view to having this important work done under the direction of the auditor general rather than by this particular firm of chartered accountants. I have had some contact with this firm since I have been a member of the committee that has examined the operations of the Canadian National Railways, and I have no criticism whatever to offer with respect to the auditing that has been done by the George A. Touche Company. But, as the hon. member for Vancouver North argued a year ago, there is no good reason why this work might not be undertaken and completed by the auditor general. Last year the minister gave the reasons he thought were important, but I do not think the defence made by the minister was very reasonable.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The house agreed with it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, the house did agree with it; but I think no great problem presents itself in asking the auditor general to take over the job. The book-keeping of the Canadian National Railways has been done very carefully over a period of years, and there is no
reason under the sun why the staff of the auditor general could not perform this service. I feel that the views we expressed a year ago apply with equal force this year. I draw Your Honour's attention to the amendment I moved a year ago, which is found at page 1910 of Hansard for March 31, 1947. At that time I referred you to page 228 of Beauchesne, third edition, citation 657, which was my authority for moving the amendment. So this evening I would move an amendment in exactly the same terms, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the making of provision for the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways to be done by the auditor general of Canada."


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should say a word im reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I need mot amplify what was said on the subject last year, but I am surprised that the hon. member should move the same, amendment, giving the same reasons, w'hen the amendment was defeated last year.
The reasons that it would not be in the public interest to have the auditor general audit the accounts of the Canadian National Railways are, first of all, that the auditing should be a continuing process. If the auditor general were to do the work he would have to set up a specific and separate staff to look after the special work of the railway. Again, the Canadian National Railways have offices in the United States. George A. Touche and Company have offices in various centres of the United States where the Canadian National Railways operate, and by means of these representatives are able to do the work far more efficiently than the auditor general could. I understand that a staff of some thirty or forty are assigned to the Canadian National Railways, of whom many attend exclusively to this particular job of auditing. The auditor general would be in exactly the same position and would have to employ a separate staff.
For these reasons and many others I gave during the debate last year, I think it would be against the public interest to have auditors other than the present firm, who have given entire satisfaction to the railways and, I think, to parliament as a whole.
Amendment (Mr. Nicholson) negatived on division.
Railway Grade Crossing Fund


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to increase the amount to be appropriated for the railway grade crossing fund from $200,000 to $500,000 each year for nine years, commencing on the first day of April, 1948,
He said:
The object of this resolution is to increase from 8200,000 to 8500,000 the amount paid into the grade crossing fund. Last year, 1947, there was passed an amendment to the Railway Act which provided for the payment into the railway grade crossing fund for a period of ten years an annual amount of 8200,000. It has been thought advisable in 1948 to increase the payment from 8200,000 to 8500,000, because there are many projects now before the board of transport commissioners, involving large grants from the fund. It was felt that, with the grade crossing fund standing at the amount at which it was during the greater part of 1947, and again in 1948, the appropriation should be increased. There are, of course, special votes which are made from time to time by the house, which have to do with special projects involving grade crossing features.
This resolution will seek not only to increase the appropriation to the grade crossing fund but to amend the Railway Act in perhaps three or four different ways. They are amendments which have to do with the construction of
cables under highways, with giving to the board the same powers in all municipalities which it has in towns and cities, and two other minor amendments which I need not discuss until we are in committee on the bill.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister at some stage of debate give us information respecting prospective grade crossings which might be carried out?


Lionel Chevrier: When we get into committee on the bill I think I shall be able to give the hon. member as detailed information as is in my possession at that time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 201, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we shall have the third reading of Bill No. 138, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; the second reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour for the introduction of a bill to amend the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942; a resolution in the name of the same minister to introduce a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940; the second reading of Bill No. 149, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and. if there is time, we shall take up the second reading of other bills and resolutions on the order paper, at the convenience of members.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 19, 1948