1948-06-17

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Mutch.

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

Mr. TIMMINS:: X. What were the exports from Canada to the United States in each of the years, 1946 and 1947. and for the first four mouths of 1948?
2 What were the amounts of imports into Canada from the United States in the same respective periods, in terms of foodstuffs, manufactured goods, raw materials and base metals, and all other commodities?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 
BARLEY-EXPORT PERMITS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	When were export permits for barley first granted in 1948?
Questions

2.	To date (or any convenient recent date) for how much barley have export permits been granted?
3.	Is there any restriction to the granting of these permits? If so, what was the cause of the refusals?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Export permits for barley were first authorized in 1948 on April 1 and the issuance of the first permit under the authorization was approved on April 9.
2.	Permits granted since the authorization to June 12, 1948, total 3,853,307-09 bushels.
3.	There is an over-all limitation on the exportable quantity, but no applications for barley export permits by authorized dealers, shippers or exporters have been refused since the authorization was granted on April 1.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-CONVICTIONS FOR MILITARY AND CIVIL CRIMES
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	How many convictions of members of the permanent force-army, navy and air force have there been in the years 1940 and 1947 for crimes punishable by military law?
2.	How many convictions have there been for crimes punishable by civil law?
3.	In how many of these cases have the persons involved been dismissed from the service?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: As the active defence forces were reconstituted on the 1st October, 1946, the period covered by the following reply includes period from 1st October, 1946 to 31st December, 1947.
1.	By courts martial: navy, 11; army, 86; air force, 32.
2.	By civil authority: navy, 199; army, 52; air force, 90.
3.	As a result of sentence by courts martial: navy, none; army', 3; air force, 4.
As a result of conviction by civil power: navy, none; army, 40; air force, 11.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR-CHARGES FOR ELECTRICAL WORK
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have complaints been received from exhibitors at the international trade fair in Toronto as to overcharges for electrical work in the booths, or for other services?
2.	If so, who Avere the exhibitors making such complaints?
3.	Who were the auditors in charge?
4.	What action does the government propose to take in connection thereAvith?


Mr. McILRAITH:: There have been complaints from a number of exhibitors concerning
overcharges for electrical installations in the booths. These were individual contracts made betAveen the exhibitors and the electrical contracting firm. The trade fair authorities have no financial responsibility for them.

As soon as this situation Avas called to the attention of the trade fair officials, hoAvever, they immediately discussed the matter with the electrical firm, who pointed out that there AA'ere OA'er 1,000 accounts and their accounting department AA'ere not able to cope with the situation. There Avere some unfortunate discrepancies. The firm is most anxious to make the necessary adjustments, and the exhibitors have been assured that their interests will be protected and appropriate adjustments will be made.



SALARIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Salaries Act so as to provide an increase in the salary of the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island from $7,000 to $8,000.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday, the 19th June, 1948, and eA'ery Saturday thereafter until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m., and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.
He said: May I say in regard to this motion, Mr. Speaker, that it has been presented to the leaders of the various parties and has been approved by all of them. I hope therefore it will carry unanimously.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. FLEMING:: On division.


Mr. GILLIS:: On division.


Mr. MacKINNON:: Carried unanimously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I AA'ish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will an announcement be



194S

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
made as to the financial assistance to be given to the Fraser valley flood victims?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned yesterday
'that I would shortly be making a further statement in regard to the flooding in the Fraser valley. I cannot say to my hon. friend on what particular day I can give him the information he desires, but a statement will be made as soon as possible.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am afraid I shall not have an opportunity until we go into supply to make a speech, but I will definitely make one then. I will take this opportunity to say something in which I know the Prime Minister will be interested. I have here a picture of a house; I did not own it, but I lived in it for three years. This picture was taken just before the flood reached its peak.
I should like now to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What steps have been taken to secure large dredging and other heavy equipment to rebuild the Fraser valley dikes and reclaim the damaged land?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: The government is considering the question of dredging and rebuilding the dikes on the Fraser river. I understand that a commission was formed by the diking commission within British Columbia, with engineers representing the province and the federal government. As soon as conditions permit, we expect to proceed with the work.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not the question I asked, Mr. Speaker. I asked what steps had been taken to secure large dredging and other heavy equipment. It may require to be brought in even from Europe. The public of the Fraser valley and British Columbia are not satisfied with answers such as those that have been given now.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO LIFTING EMBARGO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I desire to address a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the uncertainties created by statements in the press as to the lifting of the embargo on beef cattle, is the government yet prepared to make a statement clarifying this matter?


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: I have taken note of the question that has
been asked by the hon. member for Brant. He can rest assured that when an announcement is made, it will be made in the interests of all concerned.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Put him in the cabinet.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, who has given a delightful answer to a question about the removal of the embargo on cattle. A copy of the Financial Post has just been handed to me, which says that the government will delay decision on lifting the cattle export ban until after the Saskatchewan election and until after the House of Commons adjourns. Is there any basis for the statement contained in this paper?


Robert McCubbin: I have not seen the article mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre, but the government will announce their decision, irrespective of any provincial election, whenever they deem it in the best interests of the country.



PRESS REPORT AS TO BUILDING OF RAILWAY FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or to the appropriate minister. Will the minister make a statement in regard to an announcement in the press to the effect that the United States desire to build a railway from their border up to Alaska, and the part Canada is to take in it?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the government has no information of any project of the kind.


Mr. IRVINE:: I intended to ask the same question, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: May I inquire from the Minister of Justice if he is in a position this morning to answer the question I asked him yesterday?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: I made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the situation my hon. friend from Cape Breton South mentioned yesterday. There is a newspaper dispatch indicating that
Inquiries oj the Ministry

boats will be armed, but how much reliance is to bo placed on that statement of intention, I do not know. In the meantime, the division of jurisdiction to which I referred yesterday will be maintained. The federal police will protect federal government property and do their best to prevent trespassing on federal government property and to maintain order on it. Naturally there will be some co-operation between the federal police and the provincial police. But essentially the division of jurisdiction well established by practice will be maintained in the future as it has been in the past, and the federal police will confine their duties to the field I have mentioned. That will be the case until they are requested by the attorney general's department of Ontario to do something further. At that time the request will be given consideration.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Whose responsibility will it be if the companies decide to arm the crews on their ships? Will that be legal under the laws of Canada, and if it is not legal, whose responsibility will it be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The responsibility for the maintenance of order lies with the provincial authorities, not with the federal authorities. As my hon. friend knows, sometimes the provincial authorities find that the situation is a little bit beyond their capacity to deal with, *n which event they ask for federal assistance. When that is done, consideration is always given to their request.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Press reports this morning indicate that a request has been made to the government to put a controller in charge of the ships involved in the strike. Is the minister prepared to make a statement?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I make the statement that the government has no power to take over any industry at the present time. We had that power under the War Measures Act, as my hon. friend will remember. I would express the personal opinion that governments should not be in business and take over industry to show our communist friends how to run this country without a House of Commons. That is no reflection on my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: They will soon be taking you over.



SALMON FISHERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT W. MAYHEW (Minister of Fisheries): I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a matter of significant importance to the salmon fishing and processing industry of British Columbia.
It will be recalled that the government has been concerned since last fall with the situation facing the salmon, canning industry in 1948, as a result of the withdrawal of export controls on certain species of salmon. To give effect to the representations of the fishermen, eo-operaltives, and eanners, the government announced, on April 8, that effective as of that date British Columbia fishermen would be permitted to export, without restriction, raw spring salmon-export of fresh cohoe salmon was also permitted, buit only up to September 1 of this year-and that fresh sockeyes, pinks and chums would be retained in Canada for processing.
It was indicated at the time that the policy of the government sought to retain for processing in Canada those species of salmon normally canned and that the plan was a compromise between the different interests; further, that the plan indicated flexibility in [DOT]the event of changing conditions.
From information received during the past few weeks from the Pacific coast, it appears evident there is a distinct possibility that large quantities of sockeyes, pinks and chums will be frozen and exported, thus defeating the original plan. This would have had the effect of depriving the canning industry in British Columbia of considerable quantities of raw' material, which would result in curtailed operations and loss of direct employment in the canneries, and indirectly cause loss to many ancillary industries.
In view of these changed conditions it has been found desirable and necessary for the government to extend its policy of affording safeguards to both fishermen and management in the salmon canning industry of British Columbia. Accordingly, an amendment has been made to order in council, P.C. 1521, effective immediately, that sockeyes, pinks and chums in a frozen condition will not be permitted to be exported. However, after September 1 of this year frozen chums may be exported.
The combination of the two plans will, I am informed, be quite acceptable to both the fishermen and the operators in British Columbia. It will have the effect of giving additional

Inquiries of the Ministry
force to the submissions of the fishermen, cooperatives and operators, namely the retention in Canada for processing of species of salmon which normally are canned. At the same time, the normal export trade in fresh spring and cohoe salmon will be unchanged; likewise in the case of frozen cohoes and fall-caught chums after September 1, the normal past itrade will not be interfered with.
Mr. PEARKES:: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries? It was very difficult to hear his announcement in this end of the chamber. I understand that the export of raw and frozen salmon is no longer permitted. Have contracts been signed between the fishermen and the packers on these terms?


Mr. MAYHEW:: So far as I know, no contracts have as yet been signed between the fishermen and the packers. The announcement I made today will further protect both the fishermen and the packers.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. Will the export of frozen chums be on the quota basis under this change of policy? Is there also a change in policy so far as the export of raw fish livers is concerned1?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is no change of policy in this announcement. All the policy does is to prohibit the export of frozen fish which in the fresh state is ordinarily intended for canning purposes.


Mr. ISNOR:: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries regarding west coast fisheries, will he consider the elimination of the clause relating to the moisture content of codfish on the Canadian eastern coast?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I shall look into it.



BASEBALL GAME BETWEEN MEMBERS AND PRESS GALLERY JUNE 16

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the daj':
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is custodian of the nation's health and well-being? What liniment does he recommend for broken-down baseball players of the press gallery and the House of Commons?
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare) :: In answer I would say that old men should not play young people's games.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when he expects to bring down the supplementary estimates. The house is supposed to close a week from tomorrow.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I hope to bring them down not later than the middle of next week.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN-SURRENDER OF INDIAN LANDS ON PIAPOT RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Air. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): On the 20th of May a series of questions of mine on the Piapot Indian reserve were passed as an order for return. This is the 17th of June. It should not take a month to answer these questions. They were all plain and simple. I should like to have an answer.
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to look into the question for the hon. gentleman and see whether an answer can be brought down.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement reported to have been made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is in Saskatchewan, that the supplementary payments of six and eleven cents will be made on oats and barley, when will this house be officially informed of the amount of these payments, and will the payments go forward before June 24?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not seen the statement referred to by my hon. friend. I shall be glad to look it up and consider the situation.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the arrangements for the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in London?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I shall have to ask
The Lord's Day Act,

my hon. friend to allow the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to answer this question.


Gordon Graydon: I did not think the Prime Minister took a back seat to anybody.



BIRTHDAY GREETINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata)1: Today, this 17th day of June, we must acknowledge that it is the birthday of our friend, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. He is a prospective judge. He has been here a long time. He is a gentleman ; he is learned in the law, and he is liked by all his colleagues. I wish him a happy birthday, and I congratulate him on his appointment to the bench, which will take place shortly. I wish him the very best.
Mr. MAURICE HARTT (Cartier):: I should like to join the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat in congratulating the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains on his birthday and wishing him many happy returns of the day, and also on his appointment to the bench. From my point of view and from my experience he was a born judge. I owe him this gratitude because in the last election in Cartier, when he was asked to come and speak for my opponent, he was judge enough to say no, that a Liberal member should be elected for that division. I am also grateful to the Premier of Quebec for having taken the hon. member out of the political arena and placing him in a position where he can show his qualities and his aptitude and his service to the province.


Thomas Langton Church: I join with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in congratulating the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. He will be much missed for his humour and all-round showmanship. I wish him well in his new duties.



LORD'S DAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 344, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Before I say a word or two on this subject may I ask the Minister of Justice whether it is his intention to explain the purpose and effect of the bill, and to deal with a question which I think will be of interest to the house, namely, whether there has been-


James Horace King: Order. I must ask the hon. members not to interrupt and to maintain silence in the chamber. It is impossible to hear the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would ask the minister if it is his intention to make a statement now on the effect of the bill, particularly on this question, which I believe at this stage will be of greatest interest to the house: Is this bill introduced at the request of the government or legislature of Ontario, the province chiefly affected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, section 1 of the bill has been requested by the government of Quebec, and section 2 by the government of Ontario. The Department of Justice sees no objection to either section, nor do I. Therefore the bill is introduced.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When were those requests made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: During the past twelve
months, and I think on more than one occasion. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has also suggested that section 1 would constitute an important amendment, and one which could be considered desirable. The hon. member wrote me to that effect, and I believe I have correctly expressed his view in the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: Yes. Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I had the floor.


James Horace King: If the hon. member for Eglinton wishes to question the minister, I suggest that he wait until we reach the committee stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I merely asked the minister if it was his intention to make a statement on the bill. He made his statement, and I thought I was to proceed.


James Horace King: According to the rules, hon. members may not speak more than once on a second reading. I suggest that if the hon. member has questions to ask, he wait until we reach the committee stage. The hon. member for Temiscouata has the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say I did not speak; I simply asked the minister if he would make a statement.


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member wishes to look at the rules of the house he will see that they are as I have stated them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I remind Your
Honour of the remarks I made a moment ago.

The Lord's Day Act
When I rose to speak on second reading I said that if the minister had a statement to make I was prepared to stand aside, and then to follow him. The minister has made his statement. Shall I not now have the opportunity to speak? What I said should not be considered as a speech on second reading.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order. I still believe the hon. member is considered as having spoken, if rve are to abide by the rules. If, however, it is the pleasure of the house to give unanimous consent, he may proceed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree.


Gordon Graydon: There should be no need for unanimous consent. Surely the hon. member only asked a question of the minister. That has been done in the house year after year, session after session, for a long time, as long as I can remember. Surely what the hon. member has said should not be interpreted as a speech on second reading. It has never been done before, and I am sure Your Honour would not wish to create a precedent.


James Horace King: I think hon. members would be satisfied to have the hon. member proceed.


Gordon Graydon: So long as it is not on the basis of unanimous consent.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to ask any indulgence at all from my colleagues in the house, because I do not believe in doing that. In what I say I shall be brief.
The statement the minister has made clears up the point I had in mind. Section 1 of the bill is of general interest to all the provinces of Canada, while the other section is of particular interest to Ontario. The minister has indicated that the second section is introduced at the request of the government of Ontario. This being so, we can safely leave it to the legislature of Ontario to take whatever course may be considered necessary to fill any gap there may be in the legislative field when the repealing sections of the present bill take effect.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted I should like to stand by the minister, because I mentioned this matter to him.
Here is what happened. The Lord's Day Act is strict in its terms. It was passed a long time ago. It forbids the sale of canned goods or pop on Sundays. When a complaint is lodged against an accused person for the sale of two cans of tomatoes and two cans of corn niblets, or a bottle of pop, heretofore permission to 5849-34II
take action had to be signed by the attorney general himself. He could not delegate his power. This is an imposition on an attorney general, whether he be from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Attorneys general are busy men, but under the present provisions of the act they have to do this clerical work. The deputy attorneys general of the provinces could do that work.
I mentioned this matter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) because many attorneys general, including Sir Lomer Gouin, Mr. Taschereau, Air. Duplessis and Mr. Conant. who were very busy men, found it difficult to see other people at times owing to the fact that they were busy approving complaints for the prosecution of people who had sold canned goods or pop on Sunday. Surely we should have a greater sense of proportion than that.
This is a purely clerical procedure. Attorneys general must trust their deputies sufficiently to have that work done by them. I commend the minister for correcting some of these obsolete provisions in the law for the benefit of the country at large.


[Stage Direction]
Alotion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Leave to prosecute.
John George Diefenbaker: For years the law has been that the consent of an attorney general must be secured as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action. The change made here, as I see it, is a necessary and proper one. I can see no reason why a deputy attorney general should not be able to act in the place and stead of an attorney general in a matter such as this. What was the reason originally given for the requirement that no prosecution could be taken without the consent of an attorney general? It places the administration of the act strictly within the conscience of the attorney general of the province who for the time being occupies that position. It denies or might deny equality of administration and enforcement of the law in all parts of Canada. When the minister is giving his explanation I should like him to say whether or not he considers that the provision requiring the consent of the attorney general in all cases should be abrogated.


Mr. McMASTER:: Have requests to attorneys general ever been refused, and, if so, by whom and wdien?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I assume that the reason why some discretion is vested in the attorney general is that some of the offences against the Lord's Day Act might be trivial or might be justifiable in a real sense. I heard of an instance in one of the provinces where a farmer
The Lord's Day Act

was prosecuted for doing some farm work on Sunday at a time when almost anyone would say that it was justified. The Lord's Day Act of Canada provides that such prosecution cannot be instituted without the consent of the attorney general. The pre-confederation statute in Ontario does not provide for the consent of the attorney general and therefore such a prosecution could and did take place. As the hon. member for Temiscouata said, some violations might be so trivial that it would be undesirable to place the possibility of instituting prosecutions in the hands of an ill-disposed neighbour or a competitor or something of that kind.
This is one of a set of sections in our law which vests this discretion in the attorney general. There are a number of sections in the criminal code providing that certain prosecutions cannot be instituted without the consent of the attorney general of the province. The principle of those provisions was discussed when, I introduced last year the amendment to the criminal code dealing with habitual offenders. The hon. member for Lake Centre may remember that a person cannot be charged with being an habitual offender without the consent of the attorney general of the province. A similar provision, was inserted this year in the section dealing with criminal sexual psychopaths, but was deleted at the instance of this house. There are many sections to be found in the criminal code, and perhaps in other statutes of Canada, which vest in the attorney general of the province, and in some cases in the attorney general of Canada, the discretion of preventing prose cution by withholding consent.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: Are there many prosecutions under the act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could not give my hon. friend a list of them.


John George Diefenbaker: There is practically nothing done.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, there are many hundreds.


Thomas Langton Church: Has the minister had any correspondence with the province of Ontario as to this bill, and who asked for it? I agree that there should be a repeal of the preconfederation statute. The Lord's Day Act contains many provisions with regard to what should not be done on the Lord's day. By this Bill No. 344, the federal government is divesting itself of all control over the Lord's day. We are going through difficult days. It is the 108th day of the session before this important bill is brought before the house.
Our proceedings for the past ten days have shown the need of a committee to consider

legal bills of this kind. They have had such committees in a number of the provinces for years. These legal bills are being brought up in the dying days of the session, and such a committee could hear deputations on important bills of this kind. When this matter came up in our city some years ago with regard to Sunday street cars a vote of the people was taken. I do not know how they got along in those days without ears; they certainly could not get along today without them.
I look on this bill as divesting the federal authority of all control over the day of rest. It is now being left to the attorneys general of the provinces or the deputy attorneys general of the provinces. The deputy attorney" general is a ministerial officer who carries out the instructions of his minister. In some provinces they have wide open Sundays when you can do anything you like.
I believe this is a local question. In our own city they recently opened up the parks on Sunday. Some people are for it and some are against it. This is a question which should be left to the people to decide. I do not think the federal government should divest itself of all control over this statute. The attorney general of Ontario represents the riding of the hon. member for Eglinton.
I believe that this is a local question and that the federal government should not turn over the execution and administration of this act to the provinces. It is being left- to the attorneys general or the deputy attorneys general of the provinces, and their consent is necessary to prosecute. You are going to have nine different views as to what should be done across Canada. There should be some federal contribution with regard to these legal matters. We do not enforce any federal laws. The enforcement is a matter for the provincial attorney general, who just turns it over to the local municipal police. They get nothing for it. There are hundreds of thousands of orders in council, we are passing statutes every day and when the deputy attorney general of the province says so, the municipal police are supposed to act.
The time has come when we should either administer and enforce the federal laws or give grants to the municipalities to do these things. I believe the matter of Sunday observance is something to be decided by' the people in the local communities. On the 108th day of the session we have ceased to function in such matters as are dealt, with in this bill, under our committee sy'stem. No deputations have been heard on this matter, and I believe they' should have been heard before this important amendment passes the House of Commons.

The Lord's Day Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister indicated that section 1 was being introduced at the request of the government of the province of Quebec and section 2 at the request of the government of the province of Ontario. Were other governments consulted about other sections?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, they were not. It would have been more accurate if I had said, at the request of the attorney general of the province of Quebec and at the request of the attorney general of the province of Ontario.
I have no reason to think that t'he request was embodied in any privy council minute or order in council of those provinces. The attorney general of Quebec would like the first section passed, and the attorney general of Ontario would like the second section passed. The other provinces were not consulted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot see that there is anything very serious involved in the first section. I understand that after section 16 came into force there were some who thought for a time that leave could foe given in the name of the attorney general of the province by the deputy attorney general. It was not until 1910 that the point was determined by the Supreme Court of Canada in re Criminal Code, 43 Supreme Court Reports, 434, that the leave contemplated by section 16 could not be given by the deputy attorney general of the province. The change now embodied in section 16 seems to be reasonable and not very important.


Jean-François Pouliot: The act could be entitled an act for the relief of the attorneys general.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Repeal.
John George Diefenbaker: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: The local references are only in the preamble.


John George Diefenbaker: It also provides for forfeiture and the like. Has this act been in effect, and is there any authority for it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not pay much attention to these pre-confederation statutes. I presume that by an act, perhaps an act passed about 1790 or 1791, the law of England was brought into and became part of the law of Upper Canada. I doubt whether this old English act is part of the law of any of the other provinces. I do not know about that; it is a very interesting line of inquiry. But the principle of this bill is to make -only the Lord's Day Act of the Dominion of Canada apply in the province of Ontario, and therefore the provisions of pre-confederation statutes did not concern me very much. Another statute, one other than the British statute to which my hon. friend has referred, is repealed by this bill, and that is an act of Upper Canada, 1859, which I presume would not be quite as archaic as the one to which my hon. friend referred.


Thomas Langton Church: As I understand it, chapter 21, George III, .1781, was amended by the statute known as the Constitutional Act of 1791, which amended all imperial statutes. The act referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre, chapter 21 of George III, 1781, was amended in the two provinces and only so much of the British law was adopted as was applicable to our circumstances in Canada. Is that not correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may be that that is so. I have not looked at the textbooks on these questions for I think thirty years. But the general principle as 1 remember it-I may simply be revealing my own ignorance-is that in the common law provinces the common law of Great Britain applies unless it is clearly inapplicable. The statutory law also applies unless it is clearly inapplicable. The Constitutional Act brought in, if my memory is correct, certain parts of the statute law of Great Britain, and apparently it did bring in
The Lord's Day Act

this act preventing the profanation of the Lord's day. The principles would be as applicable in Ontario, I assume, as they would be in the neighbourhood of Westminster, and the act was probably brought in as part of the law of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister
expressing any views of the government on this subject?


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I regard Sunday observance as a very important part of the law, though I do not hold the extreme views on Sunday observation that some people do. I want to ask this question. Are we not by this bill repealing what is a substantial part of the law of Ontario now with regard to Sunday observance, or is the bill repealing only something which is archaic and no longer applicable? The member for Lake Cenlre has read an amusing extract from the British statute. There may be others which are not so amusing or so archaic. But my question is-and I regard it as important: does this bill make a substantial change with respect to Sunday observance in Ontario, and if so, are we not doing it rather lightly?


James Lorimer Ilsley: By this act the control of prosecutions is being vested in the attorney general of Ontario. Under pre-confederation statutes spiteful neighbours or ill-disposed competitors or any other members of the public could lay charges for offences no matter how trivial, and nobody could stop them. Now by the Lord's Day Act the attorney general has some control over prosecutions. All that this bill does is to put Ontario in the same position as every other province in Canada except Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia there is an unrepealed pre-confederation statute, and if the attorney general of that province requested us to introduce a bill to repeal that statute, consideration would be given to his request just as it was given to the request of the attorney general of Ontario. The attorney general of Ontario saw me personally in this matter and requested that this act be passed.
My hon. friend asks whether there is any substantial loosening of the control over activities on the Lord's day. That is a hard question to answer, but there would not seem to be anything very serious here, because the code in Ontario will now be the code that is in existence in every province of Canada, with the exception of Nova Scotia, that is to say, the Lord's Day Act. In Nova Scotia there is, in addition to the Lord's Day Act, the preconfederation statute to which I have referred.
In the Lord's Day Act itself power is given to the legislature of every province to author-
ize certain activities, and it might very well be that the province of Ontario was bound by these pre-confederation statutes to a greater extent than it will be bound by the Lord's Day Act of Canada. But I doubt whether there is anything very serious about that. In any event, if there is any authorization in Ontario in respect of activities in the future on the Lord's day, it must be by action of the legislature of that province, and within the limits set out in the Lord's Day Act itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister to answer the question I asked?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The hon.
member for Eglinton has the floor.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Broadview did ask a question a while ago.


Thomas Langton Church: What are we in committee for if we cannot get an answer?
1 he DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. member that I am trying to have discussion directed from all parts of the chamber.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member asked me whether the government has any views on the observance of the Lord's day. I am very accommodating, many people think too much so, in airing my personal views, but I do not think they are relevant to this bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I look on this measure as simply establishing an open Sunday for the whole of Canada. There is no enforcement of the law in Canada. It is left to the attorney general or the deputy attorney general of the province, which means <that by this bill there is no federal authority in the enforcement of the act. This is the only statute which is left to the provinces for enforcement. Why does not the federal authority enforce its own federal laws? Why is this act singled out as the only federal statute which the provinces directly must enforce? I say to the minister, why do you not enforce all other federal laws?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I sought to take part in the debate a few minutes ago in an endeavour to answer one or two questions which had been raised. The hon. member for Lake Centre raised the question whether the imperial act of 1781 is in effect in Ontario. The Ontario courts ruled in 1880 that it was in effect in the province. I refer to the case of Rex v. Barnes. 1880. 45 Upper Canada Queen's Bench reports, 276. where that question was raised, and the court determined that the imperial act of 1781 was in effect in the province of Ontario.

The Lord's Drey Act
I need not weary the committee by reviewing all the stages by which that came about, but it goes back to proclamations of the eighteenth century. The English law as of October 15, 1792, was adopted as the law of Ontario except as repealed, altered, varied, modified, or affected by any act of the imperial parliament still having the force of law in Ontario or any act of the late province of Upper Canada or of the province of Canada or of the province of Ontario si ill having the force of law in Ontario. That is the law of Ontario today, as set out in the Ontario statutes. Historically the laws of England, civil and criminal, were supposed to be introduced into Canada by royal proclamation of October 7. 1763. The criminal law was not displaced by the Quebec Act of 1774, 14 Geo. Ill chapter S3, but was continued in the province of Upper Canada. The legislature of the province, by the act of 1792, 32 George III. chapter 1. provided that in matters of property and civil rights the laws of England should prevail. In 1800. apparently for greater caution, the act 40 George III. chapter 1 (Upper Canada) provided that "the criminal law of England as it stood on the 17th day of September. 1792". should be the criminal law of the province. The date September 17. 1792. was the date of the first of the legislature in that year; and, according to the existing law, the statutes of the session took effect as of the first day of the session.
That is how this old act of 1781 came to be part of the law of Upper Canada, and that was not changed by the Constitutional Act of 1841. When confederation became effective, no right was reserved to the new provincial legislature to modify the old pre-confederation law.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario raised the question whether this is a matter of substance or not. I think a word might be said further on that. The fact is that the legislature of Ontario some years after confederation sought to pass legislation on the subject of Sunday observance. That legislation incidentally is in many respects comparable in terms to the old imperial legislation. This act to which I am referring was enacted in the reign of Queen Victoria, and it was carried forward into the Revised Statutes of Ontario, -1897, chapter 246.
The test of the jurisdiction of the provinces went to the privy council in the year 1903 in the case of the Attorney General of Ontario v. the city of Hamilton Street Railway, 1903 Appeal Cases, pages 524. The privy council determined that the provincial legislatures had no power to pass such legislation, holding
that the law with respect to Sunday observance falls within the jurisdiction of parliament to legislate in respect of the criminal law; and consequently, the legislature of the province of Ontario has had no general jurisdiction over Sunday observance except in so far as scope is given to the legislatures of the provinces by the federal statute, the Lord's Day Act.
The statute that is now being amended is the Lord's Day Act. chapter 123 of the Revised .Statutes' of Canada. 1927, In taking the step that is involved in section 2, it does not seem to me that anything is being done that need give any member of the house reason for pause. The principal law of this country with reference to Sunday observance is today, and will continue to be under the bill before us, the federal statute, the Lord's Day Act. For more than a generation the enforcement of the act has been left by federal legislation in the hands of the attorneys general of the provinces.
Having regard to the fact that there is considerable divergence of usage in the matter of Sunday observance in different parts of Canada, I do not see what serious objection should be raised to the principle of section 16 of this act, that enforcement should be left largely i,n the hands of the provinces. The attorneys general of the provinces, as the chief law enforcement officers, are the persons, in my opinion, best qualified to take responsibility in matters of enforcement of the Lord's Day Act. In enacting this present bill it seems to me that we are not displacing any substantive law that is vital today. We are simply removing legislation that would not be enforced today by any attorney general in any province. We are bringing our laws in some measure up to date.


William Alexander McMaster: During the past fifty years we have seen the executive taking over the powers of legislation, practically taking unto themselves power to introduce nearly all our legislation and to force their followers to vote for it. Now they are going into the judicial sphere, the third main branch of our government. It is true that for some time the consent of the attorney general has been required. But there is no doubt that clause 2-and I think that is the clause with which we are dealing now-


William Henry Golding: Yes.


William Alexander McMaster: -is intended to keep in the hands of the attorney general of Ontario at least, because it is the only province to which it refers, the power to decide when a prosecution is to be instituted with regard to
Industrial Relations

the desecration of Sunday. Every argument used by the Minister of Justice as to prosecutions under the Lord's Day Act could be equally applicable to any other act. That is, anybody who thinks that anyone else has broken the law of the country can institute a prosecution, and it is only proper that he should. If the magistrate thinks that the act is one which does not justify prosecution, he can refuse to allow an information to be laid or if the matter goes on and it is found that it was instituted in a manner that was blameworthy, it may be a matter of malicious prosecution.
I submit again that every argument advanced by the Minister of Justice for the passage of this act is equally applicable to any other prosecution under the criminal code. I do not think we should pass this bill. I do not think the attorney general of each province should be the arbiter of what prosecution should be instituted.
Attorneys general change. The attorney general is a part of the executive. This is just carrying on this principle to which we have been objecting in this house on many occasions, that the executive has taken charge of the government of this country, and that the people, and even parliament, are being pushed aside. I shall oppose this bill.


William Henry Golding: Shall the clause carry?


William Alexander McMaster: On division.
Section agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Alexander McMaster: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 195, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes (as amended).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. WINKLER:: I should like to move an amendment to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph
(i)	of subsection 1 of section 2. That paragraph reads as follows:
(ii)	A member of the medical, dental, architectural, engineering or legal profession qualified to practise under the laws of a province and employed in that capacity . . .
The result of the amendment would be merely to add the word "dietitian". There are in Canada some 650 trained dietitians who are united in an organization called the Canadian Dietetic Association. Two or three weeks ago they met in Montreal and passed certain resolutions, and it was unanimously requested that they be excluded from the operation of this act along with those other professional people mentioned. I do not wish to misinterpret or give incorrect information as to what the reasons were for refusal by the committee on industrial relations; but if I am correct, it was largely because if dietitians were brought into the section the committee felt they would also have to include nurses. Rather than carry that idea into effect, they decided not to include dietitians.
The dietitians wrote to the committee on industrial relations on May 17 of this year. I have in my hand a copy of their letter, and I should like to read merely the opening and closing paragraphs. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
The Canadian Dietetic Association strongly urges that dietitians should be included with those other professional groups such as the medical, dental, architectural, engineering and legal professions, the members of which are excluded from the definition or "employees" under the terms of paragraph 1, section 2 (i) 2 of Bill No. 195 presently under consideration by your committee and this for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
Then they set forth a number of reasons and the concluding paragraph reads:
For the foregoing reasons, the Canadian Dietetic Association submits that your committee should accede to the present request and amend Bill No. 195 so as to establish clearly that dietitians are excluded from the operation of the act as is the ease with members of other professions whose training requirements and the scope of whose work are on a similar level.
The reason submitted by the committee was,
I understand, a purely negative one. Had this been the United States of America, where similar legislation operates under the Taft-Hartley Act, the request would have received a positive interpretation. I have before me a synopsis of U.S. 3020, which is from the

Industrial Relations
Taft-Hartley Act, and I should like to quote these positive reasons:
Term "professional employee" means (S2 12):
(a)	any employee engaged in work.
(i)	predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine, mental, manual, mechanical or physical work;
(ii)	involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance.
(iii)	of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time;
(iv)	requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institute of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual or physical processes; or
(b)	any employee, who:
_ (i) has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study prescribed in clause fiv) of paragraph (a), and
(ii) is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person to qualify himself to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a).
I maintain that if this proposed amendment carries it will not prejudice the position of any of those who wish to be included in this section, or of those who desire not to be included. As an organization, the dietitians maintain that they are professional people. They had a certain dignity which they wish to have recognized, and they are anxious to be placed in a position where they may command the respect of other professional people. For these reasons, and especially because of the positive request which they make, which in my opinion would not prejudice any professional group, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince:
That section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (i), subparagraph (ii) be amended by inserting the word "dietitian" immediately after the word "medical."


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I should say right away that I cannot accept the amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: To begin with, if the bill is amended it should be after consideration. This is one of the requests which have come in later. Federally we have not much jurisdiction. Dietitians come under the law of the provinces. They do not stand in the same class as the professions of engineering, architecture, dentistry, medicine and the like. I should think that if an amendment of this kind were necessary it should be done by the provinces where the jurisdiction lies.
May I say to my hon. friend that I am not greatly impressed by quotations from the
Taft-Hartley measure; I am not greatly impressed by the words "dignity" or "intellectual." All the brains or intellect are not on one side of the street. I think we would be well advised to keep the section just as it is. If necessary we can take another look at it later in the light of the circumstances as they develop. I think that is the best course to pursue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why in the first draft of the bill that was sent out-


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member dealing with the amendment?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us deal with the amendment.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
amendment carry?


Angus MacInnis: I am happy to be able to support the Minister of Labour in this matter. There are too many exclusions already, and I do not believe we should add any more. Later on I am going to move an amendment to the same section to restore something that was deleted.
As the minister pointed out, if the provinces adopt this bill as it is, or with modifications, as their labour code, they can insert or leave this profession out, as the case may be. We are unduly restricting those who may be included in this section.


Mr. SKEY:: As was pointed out in the committee, this section is so worded that difficulties similar to that of the dietitians are bound to arise and will continue to arise. There is already before the government the case, I believe it is, of the chemical engineers. The government should consider the redrafting of this section so that there will not be continuous applications from any number of groups to be included as professionals. This situation will continue so long as the section reads the way it does. It seems to me it might have been much better to leave out subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (i) and say:	"'employee' means a person
employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, clerical or technical work", and leave it at that. That would be much better than to have a section in the bill which would be a constant cause of friction.
Amendment (Mr. Winkler) negatived.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have an amendment to make to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (i) of subsection 1 of section 2. I move that after the word "capacity" the words "in matters relating to labour relations" be reinstated.
Industrial Relations


Mr. CROLL:: The bill that we have before us was printed on April 6. The amendments that were made in committee are not included in the new bill which was handed out today. Will the minister, in each case, give us the amendments made by the committee so that we shall know exactly what we are dealing with? The minister is now moving to reinstate words which are in the bill as it is before us. Perhaps the committee of the whole does not know that they were struck out by the committee which considered the bill. If the minister would do that, it would be useful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or the chairman could point it out.


Mr. CASE:: We should have copies of the amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: The subparagraph reads:
A manager or superintendent, or any other person who, in the opinion of the board, exercises management functions or is employed in a confidential capacity . . .
The committee struck out the words "in matters relating to labour relations." I am moving that these words be put back in.


Mr. ADAMSON:: This matter was discussed in the committee and the amendment was carried by the committee. The government is reversing the decision of the committee in this matter. The committee approved the deletion; why has the government changed its mind?


Humphrey Mitchell: There was general agreement on the definition of "employee" prior to its going to the committee. I have expressed this opinion before. We have had a great deal of difficulty with the language of this section. Wherever it has been drafted there has always been difficulty. In human institutions you have to place a measure of trust in the people whom you appoint to a board. I am convinced of this, and I know that my legal friends will agree with me. Where you have a board made up of individuals such as we have, and as they have in several provinces, representative of industry and labour, with an impartial chairman, the conclusion reached was that this was about the best language that could be used in the circumstances. There has been no serious objection to it. If we attempted to draft a bill which included what everyone wanted it would be a poor looking document.
So far as I know we have had no difficulty in the national board, nor do I know of any serious difficulties in the provincial boards. They have decided who was an employee within the meaning of P.C. 1003. After the study we gave the matter I am convinced that no serious difficulty would arise in connection with the definition of "employee."

Perhaps I might give an example. On the railways are section foremen who have been members of trade unions for the last fifty years. The conductor on a train has complete control, because he has charge of the train. He takes and gives orders. Then, in a small industry you may find someone who is called a foreman, and whose position would be the equivalent of a superintendent or executive in a larger industry. The only rule one can lay down is the rule of common sense as applied to the industry concerned. The language must be broad enough to enable it to be properly interpreted by men of intelligence. I know we have such men on the national board, and I can say we also have them on the provincial boards. In the light of the language of the section I am prepared to accept their judgment in the matter.


Agar Rodney Adamson: These words were not in P.C. 1003, and I understand it worked satisfactorily so far as the definition of employee is concerned. I have felt, and I still feel, that this would place a restriction on the powers and judgment of the board, because it is confining and restrictive. That is the reason I was opposed to it in committee.


Angus MacInnis: Here again I am glad to be of the same mind as the Minister of Labour. I had prepared an amendment restoring these words to the section, but I am glad I did not have to move it. I know that in the house the minister's endorsation carries much more weight than mine. Two of the central labour bodies are anxious to have this section remain as it was originally drafted. The minister shows good judgment in taking action to restore the bill to its original form, and I am pleased to support it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I share the minister's hope that the section may operate as well as he expects. However, I find myself slightly confused by his argument, because all he said about common sense and broad language if taken logically would apply equally to the deletion of these words so as to permit the board to operate without being confined. If he wishes to trust the board, as he has said, and not to bind it too closely, his argument is certainly more effective for the deletion of the words than for their inclusion.


Humphrey Mitchell: The language is based upon the board's experience in the administration of P.C. 1003. That was their general approach to the problem in connection with the definition of "employee".


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The hon. member for York
West has pointed out that they7 were not in P.C. 1003.

Industrial IIelalions


Humphrey Mitchell: But it was the practice in matters related to labour relations. That is the way the board approached the matter. Let me say this about the national board, that I do not know a better one-and what I say applies equally to employers and employees. I do not know of an abler board, and I have known the members personally since I joined the ministry, and before. I believe the interests of employers are well protected by men like Mr. Harry Taylor, Mr. E. R. Complin, Mr. A. J. Hills, and Mr. Albert Deschamps, as are those of employees by Mr. A. R. Mosher, Mr. W. L. Best, Mr. J. A. D'Aoust and Mr. Gerard Picard.
Mr. SKE1 : The minister is indeed fortunate to have such a good board, because this legislation will not help them much.
Amendment agreed to on division.


William Henry Golding: I draw the attention of the committee to paragraph (r) on page 3, where the committee added the words, "but shall not include any employer-dominated organization."


Angus MacInnis: I have something further to say on section 2(1) (i) (ii). As the subparagraph was originally drafted, and as it appears in the bill, it read:
(ii) A member of the medical, dental, architectural, engineering or legal profession qualified to practise under the laws of a province and employed in that capacity.
The committee had many representations respecting this section. Most of the discussions dealt with the word "engineering". I move-
That the word "engineering" in the second line of subparagraph (ii) of section 2 be deleted.
In industry today large numbers of employees are described as engineers. While some of these are in a managerial capacity, most of them are ordinary employees in mass production.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Since we have no copies of the amendments made in committee, and we have had evidence of the methods employed by the minister to reinstate certain words, would it not be better to deal with the sections as they appear here and then move the amendments from the committee as we go along? We would then have something before us, while under the present plan we do not know what we are doing, because the amendments made by the committee do not appear in the bill.


William Henry Golding: I shall read the amendment as moved in committee when each section is called. Hon. members will then have the amendments before them.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: We had a lengthy discussion in committee as to whether the word "engineering" should be deleted, and it was decided to leave it in. I agree with the amendment that has been moved, in view of the fact that there are some 1,100 active engineers who desire to come under this legislation. In my view it is wrong to exclude them. I take that view because this is supposed to be labour legislation for all of Canada, and any labour or other group has the right to come under the legislation if it so desires. By leaving in this word we definitely exclude from the benefits of this legislation 1,100 people who consider themselves employees. I take the view that even if a number of doctors employed by companies desire to have the protection of this labour code, they should not be barred from the right to enter into union agreements with the company.
When we include this word "engineering" in the bill we are without question depriving 1,100 employees of the right to enter into agreements with the companies for which they work. In my view that is not good legislation, nor is it sound judgment. If the other engineers do not wish to come under this legislation, they are not compelled to do so; but if this word were taken out it would permit those who desire to come under the legislation to do so. I do not think we should go so far as to compel people to forgo the protection of this legislation, and for that reason I am in favour of the amendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the original draft was sent to the members the word "engineering" had been written in over the top of the word "architectural". Why was that done?


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is speaking of last year's bill. The word "engineering" is in this year's bill. It was put in after representations had been made by representative organizations. I think it is fair to say that in the committee there was more discussion over this word "engineering" than over anything else, and more representations were made about it. After the matter was discussed it was decided that it should remain in the bill.
I do not want to go over all the arguments that were used in the committee. The engineering organizations spoke for the engineers. It is all very well for the hon. member to say that he takes a certain view about doctors, but I think the doctors have a right to speak for themselves. National and other organizations expressed their views, and as a result it was decided that the word "engineering" should remain in the bill.
Indust rial Relations


Clarence Gillis: I was a member of the committee and heard all the discussions, but a number of members of this house who are now considering this section did not have an opportunity to hear those arguments. I think the matter is of sufficient importance that at least some of the pertinent points should be brought out. I am not going to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Bow River, because I agree with everything he has said.
I would point out that there is nothing compulsory in the bill. If it applied to doctors, lawyers, engineer's and what have you, the first thing they would have to do would be to conform with the mechanics of the bill, form a tradie union, get certification and all the rest of it. If they did not want to do that, there is nothing in the bill that compels them to.
There are two classifications of engineers. There is the engineer who is an employee, and there is the engineer at the managerial level. In effect the one is the boss of the other. My understanding of the representations that were made for the exclusion of engineers from this bill is that they were made by those at the managerial level. During the war engineers were permitted to form collective bargaining organizations under P.C. 1003 and come within the scope of that legislation.
As the hon. member for Bow River suggested, there are 1,100 employee engineers who have formed collective bargaining organizations and now have collective bargaining agreements with their employers. If we exclude engineers from this legislation we wipe out the bargaining rights of 1,100 people who have said that they want them because they have made collective bargaining agreements under P.C. 1003, which is being replaced by this legislation.
We hear a lot about democracy. I think the employee engineer has as much right to form a unit of his own under the provisions of this bill and to bargain with the employer as the managerial engineer has to say that he does not. want to come under it. If he does not want to come under it there is nothing to compel him to come under it unless he goes through the mechanics provided by' the bill and forms a collective bargaining organization.
I do not think this house or the committee has the right to say to employee engineers who want the same rights as are given to others under this legislation that they must not continue the arrangements they made under P.C. 1003 and' have been working under for the past six or seven years. We have no right to exclude them from this bill, and thus wipe out the agreements they have entered into which have improved their conditions.

I suggest that the minister give serious consideration to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East and restore democracy to these 1,100 engineers who are already within the scope of the present legislation. They should be permitted to continue. If the remaining strata of the engineering profession want to continue as they are, if they want to keep their professional units outside the scope of this legislation, that is their right. They do not have to come in, but I do not think we have the right to exclude employee engineers who have already shown a desire to come under the legislation. It is too serious a step to take to exclude them now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My general disposition, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, is to go along with what a committee recommends. There has been very little indication of the reasoning which led the committee to the conclusion that it arrived at. As I recall it, the minister said that we had a good committee and should abide by the results; but he does not always abide by the results. Therefore I think we might ask the minister to make a substantive argument in favour of this.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have always taken the view that you should listen to the representations made by parent organizations. Every provincial institute of professional engineers and the national organization of engineers asked that this be put in the bill. I am thinking at the moment of the doctors in New Zealand and the doctors and dentists in Great Britain and other countries. I think the case made by the engineering institutes was a good one, as were the cases made by the legal societies, the architects and other professional organizations. In my judgment due weight had to be given to their representations.
It may be proved to these organizations and their membership in the light of experience that their judgment was unsound. If so, then will be the time to amend the section. With labour you listen in the main to representations from the national organizations, and similarly with representations from the employers. The representations we received from the organizations and from professional groups which.obtained their status as professional men from provincial legislatures were very powerful.
Amendment (Mr. Maclnnis) negatived: yeas, 14; nays, 54.


David Arnold Croll: Was there not another amendment to section 2, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: Yes, there was an amendment to add after the word



194S

[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
"employees" in line 6 on page 3 the words "but shall not include an employer-dominated organization". The paragraph if amended accordingly would read:
(r) "trade union" or "union" means any organization of employees formed for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees but shall not include an employer-dominated organization.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I want to know why that is being moved, if it is the minister's amendment.


William Henry Golding: The amendment was approved by the standing committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I have nothing more to say.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Employer or employers' organization interference with trade union.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman. I wish to move the same amendment to this clause that I moved when the bill was before the industrial relations committee. I have had a sufficient number of copies of the amendment mimeographed for distribution among the members, so that they will have its' terms before them.
May I say at the outset that I understand this amendment is still being considered by the Minister of Labour, and also by the Minister of Transport because of the interest of the railways in its provisions. Therefore I would request, if it is agreeable to the committee, that clause 4 stand until this afternoon so that my amendment may be looked into further. The Minister of Transport intimated to me this morning that he might like to move a subamendment, and it happens to be a subamendment I woidd be prepared to accept. In other words, Mr. Chairman, without attempting to argue the case just' now, I shall move the amendment and have it distributed amongst the members. My suggestion then is that the clause stand until this afternoon or some other time convenient to the minister.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East:
That section 4, subsection 2(b) be amended by changing the period after the word "Act" to a comma, and adding thereafter the following words:
and without restricting the genenlity of the foregoing, no employer shall deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which lie would otherwise be entitled by reason only
of his ceasing to work as the result of a lockout or strike or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act.
I would be prepared, Mr. Chairman, to proceed with my argument, but I think you will recognize from what I have said that it would perhaps be better to let the clause stand until the afternoon.


William Henry Golding: I think that would meet the wishes of the committee. I would point out to the members that in committee a seconder of an amendment is not required.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister of Labour has informed me that my amendment to section 4, subsection 2 (b), is still being studied. I understand that the Minister of Transport is also giving it further consideration, and the suggestion has been made to me that the clause might be allowed to stand until later in the day'. If the committee so wishes, that is acceptable to me, and I will reserve anything I have to say until the question is again before the committee.


William Henry Golding: Is it the wish of the committee that clause 4 stand for the time being?
Section stands.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Collective agreement conditions allowed.


William Henry Golding: Perhaps 1 should read the amendment that was agreed upon by the committee when the bill was before it. It was to add to section 6 a subsection 3, reading as follows:
Upon request of a trade union entitled to bargain collectively under this act on behalf of a unit of employees and upon receipt of a request in writing signed by any employee in such unit, the employer of such employee shall, until the employee in writing withdraws such request, periodically deduct and pay out of the_ wages due to such employee, to the person designated by the trade union to receive the same, the union dues of such employee; and the employer shall furnish to such trade union the names of the employees who have given and withdrawn such authority.


Mr. LITTLE:: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 6 be amended by deleting subsection 3 thereof.


William Henry Golding: It has been moved by Mr. Little that section 6 be amended by striking out subsection 3 thereof
/ndust rial Rclations


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Chairman, I gather that the amendment, coming from a private member, will give us an opportunity to have a free vote on this resolution. I am glad to know as a matter of fact that the committee will have that opportunity, but there are a great number of hon. members here who were not on the committee, and perhaps those of us who were there will give a few words of explanation.
The clause as read by the chairman is what is commonly known as the voluntary revocable check-off. It means nothing more than that the employer collects union dues, which the employee voluntarily asks him to do, the employee having the right to revoke it at any time he likes. There is no hardship on the employer. It does not interfere with any of the rights of the employer, be they managerial or otherwise, nor does it interfere with any of the rights that belong to the general public. It is a voluntary act on the part of the employee, and all it requires is a mechanical act by someone in the office to check it off in the same way that all office staffs now collect income tax deductions, unemployment insurance deductions, perhaps deductions for Red Cross and even for payroll savings of some sort.
If there is a hardship as a result of this clause it can only be on the employee. He is the one who pays the shot, and he is the one who is asking for it. All it does in effect is to give the unions the merest and barest measure of union security, and the purpose of it is to maintain the strength and integrity of the union.
I am sure the committee will agree with me that a responsible employer should welcome a responsible union. As a matter of fact, in a great number of collective agreements they have the check-off. But there are some who refuse to give it to their employees, for some reason or other, and those who deny it do so,
I think, with the view that they will keep the union weak, because the inability of the union to obtain enough money in order to carry out administration leads to a weak and struggling union. I think the committee will agree with me that it increases the number and the bitterness of conflicts arising in labour-management relations.
We have seen in the past that unions do not starve very easily. They are used to austerity; consequently it never succeeds. Nevertheless the refusal of the employer to be a help to the union leads to difficulties. I call the attention of the committee to a statement made by Mr. Justice Rand in the famous Ford motor case:
I consider it entirely equitable that all employees should be required to shoulder their [The Deputy Chairman.]
portion of the burden of expense for adininister-mg the lan of their employment, the union contract, that they must take the burden along with the benefits.
I am not suggesting that we go that far, although Mr. Justice Rand's decision was hailed as a most progressive one, and it has brought us peace in the automobile industry.
This resolution does not suggest that we go that far. It does not suggest that anyone who is not a member of the trade union should contribute. What it says in effect is that when those who are members make the request of the employer, the employer shall comply with it. I think the request is a simple one. Labour lias not only earned it but deserves it. For a long time they have asked for union security. I think labour relations in this country will improve as we meet labour at least half way.
Mr. Sib; CLAIR: I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment. The hon. member for Spadina has clearly explained why the committee on industrial relations supported his amendment when it was placed before them. My own feeling is that there should be no reason for the committee not adopting an amendment, which, as he has pointed out, involves no hardship on the employer and merely facilitates the collection by the union of union dues. " The British Columbia labour code, 1947, includes such a clause, and the deduction is regarded merely as an assignment of wages, which it is in essence, as the hon. member for Spadina pointed out. This government uses exactly the same principle in collecting unemployment. insurance, workmen's compensation, and income tax from all employees.
I would not support here the compulsory or irrevocable check-off. But all this amendment means is that if an employee, in writing, tells his employer that he wishes his union dues deducted at the source by the employer, then the employer must do it, the employee still having the right, by similar written notice, to revoke that check-off. Therefore, both as a member of the industrial relations committee and as a British Columbia member supporting similar legislation in my own province, I would urge this committee to support the hon. member's amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. HOMUTH:: Before the minister proceeds, I think it ought to be made clear that the amendment we are discussing is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming. The hon. member who just sat down is talking about an amendment which is actually part of the act.

Industrial Relations


William Henry Golding: The amendment before the committee is the one moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The double negative
again.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said a great deal about this matter when it was in committee, and I am frank to admit that there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to what a collective bargaining agreement is and what it is not. As I said in the committee, I take the British view. I am frank about that. I was raised in the school in which the union officers collected the dues. They had the contact between the officers or the stewards and the men. I think that is the proper way. I do not believe that a provision which comes within the purview of collective bargaining should be written into an act of parliament. I think that approach is fundamental.
I intend to take the long view. I know that at the moment a great deal of confusion exists in the world. It is seen in France, in the United States, in Great Britain, and to a much larger extent in Australia and in other countries. I do not think there is any substitution for people sitting around the table and negotiating an agreement. It has been stated that the check-off exists in some industries in this country. I have no objection to the checkoff as such. I have no objection to a trade union agreement fashioned and negotiated by men sitting around a table. But as I pointed out early in the committee proceeedings, this biff is intended' to go down the middle of the road. It is based on the principle of conciliation.
We have witnessed what has happened in the United States, and I offer no criticism of what has happened there. It is a free country, under the two party system, where you get the ebb and flow of opinion on national affairs. The Wagner Act was passed in that country. Let me point out to my trade union friends, and more particularly to those who have had experience in these matters, that some in the United States thought the Wagner Act was a swing too far to the left. Then, by the turn of the wheel-I think it was the hon. member for Calgary West who used' that phrase in the committee-they got the Taft-Hartley measure. I well know the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary West.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And he still
takes it.


Humphrey Mitchell: As he has a perfect right to do. But in the United States you have a change in the complexion of congress and the senate. Today you have the Taft-Hartley
measure which a great many people must, by the very nature of things, feel is sound legislation in that country. I remember discussing that legislation with some of the higher ranking officials of the American Federation of Labor. After the president had vetoed the bill, they thought it wmuld not get the necessary majority-I forget whether it is two-thirds that is required^in the congress and senate. I said this to them. Most men are activated by the opinions of the people back home. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if that is not what motivates him. Is it not the fact that you want to continue on, that you want to be a member of congress, or the senate, or of this House of Commons from now on?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: "Pourquoi pas," as they say in French. I sometimes wonder myself. But hon. members have seen what happened in the United States. Many of the cherished things enjoyed by labour organizations have been outlawed under the provisions of recent legislation. This bill does not interfere one iota with collective bargaining between employers and employees. If they want a closed shop, they can have a closed shop, tinder the Taft-Hartley legislation they cannot have it. In Canada there are industries which have had the closed shop for over fifty years because both employers and employees believed it was in the best interests of the industry. I am speaking now of the construction industry. What I am fearful of is that with the swing of the pendulum you might get a government which would go much farther to the left than this government, or the opposition, or even my good friends of the C.C.F. On the other hand you may get a government which swings much farther to the right, and which will take away from the labour organizations conditions which have existed in this country for a good many years. That is why I say that the soundest approach to this problem is through negotiation. You start off with legislating for the check-off. You legislate in connection with wages and other working conditions. That has happened in other countries, as I said in the committee.
I was in Germany at the time of the revolution when Hitler obtained power. At that time Germany had the most powerful trade union movement in the history of the world. But. it was so interwoven with the state that when Hitler got. his fingers on the strings, neither the trade unions nor the employers were free agents. They were merely servants of the state. I should like to see our people
Industrial Relations

sit down as free men and bargain collectively, predicated on responsibility.
It has been said, and truthfully, that some employers have made it difficult for trade unions; but let me say that it cuts both ways. I am sjreaking as a trade unionist. Some trade unions have made it difficult for decent employers. Let us be fair about it. In our approach to this problem we cannot have one law for the rich and a different one for the poor, dealing with the same subject. If we do we are in for trouble. I think that is what is fundamentally wrong with the legislation in the United States. That is what was fundamentally wrong with the Wagner Act. You see the disputes with the typographical union in Chicago and in many other cities of the United States, where legislation has deprived that responsible organization of conditions that it has enjoyed for years, and of some conditions which they have enjoyed for a century in some centres in that country. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, I would rather see in our federal jurisdiction the railroad labour organizations sit down with the companies and fashion an instrument predicated on this bill, if you like, having due regard for the difficulties of that widespread organization.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South comes from a tightly-knit organization, the miners' organization, where conditions are comparatively easy. There are not many companies; they all live in the same locality.
I am frank to admit that I do not know too much about the details of the railroad industry in this country. I know it in a broad and general way. Speaking from memory, I think there are twenty-eight different organizations involved. All these different organizations collect dues in many localities. Do not forget that they have enjoyed relations with these companies down through the years not excelled by any other labour organization in this country. What has it been due to? It has been because of the ability to see the other fellow's point of view. I think that is a sound approach.
This afternoon one hon. member referred to the Rand formula. How did the Rand formula come about? It came about through the appointment of Mr. Justice Rand as a commissioner. I played some part in the final conclusions of that dispute. In essence it was straight collective bargaining. Mr. Justice Rand's findings were not compulsory, but they were agreed to by both parties to the dispute. That is the proper approach. I am offering no criticism of the Rand formula, but I question very much, outside of the check-off provisions in that formula, whether many trade unions of this country wish to go the

full length of the implications and applications of that formula, taking the long point of view.
I do not think there is much more I need to say. I like to see meetings such as we have in my organization where everybody turns up and pays his dues. We had good meetings. If they did not turn up to pay their dues the stewards collected them. I know some of the implications when that does not have to be done. I agree with the hon. member for Spadina that i't makes it easy for the trade union organization, but taking the long view-and I say this sincerely on the basis of principle itself-I think it is in the best interests of the trade unions themselves, and I think my prediction will be borne out in the light of experience, that they do the work themselves and not let somebody else do it for them.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to see that we have a fairly well filled house. It is unfortunate to have this discussion take place at this time. The industrial relations committee gave a lot of thought, and had a lot of discussion on this particular subject. The minister used the same arguments in the committee that he is using in the house today. Nevertheless, by a majority vote of the committee the provision for a check-off was written into the bill. It surprised me this afternoon to have a private member on the government benches move for the deletion of a clause in the bill which was put there after a lot of consideration. Had it come from the minister I would have thought it was the government's intention to have it removed, but since a private member moved it, I am assuming 'that every member on that side of the house will be able to cast his vote freely without being influenced by the cabinet statement made by the minister.


Mr. McIVOR:: We always do.


Clarence Gillis: Perhaps that will happen. I hope that the assumption of the hon. member for Spadina and of myself is correct, namely, that it merely comes from one private member who perhaps is not as well informed on the subject as he should be.
We are attempting to lay down a national labour code. The objective of that code is to bring uniformity in labour relations between province and province. It is a start, and a good one. But if we remove the clause that we are now discussing, it will make it impossible for provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to come within the scope of this national code, if the government

Industrial Relations
wish to hand jurisdiction in labour relations over to the provinces; because each of the provinces that I have mentioned has a trade union act, and the check-off provision is written into every one of those acts. In many cases it was not written into those acts with the good will of the employers. It was fought for. The general public of the provinces that I have mentioned are convinced that the principle which we are attempting to lay down in this national code is a good one. I do not think that the governments in the provinces-I am reasonably sure of Nova Scotia- or the general public would want this provision removed. We are defeating the purpose of a national code if we make it impossible for the provinces I have mentioned to come in.
The minister made the statement that in his own union the shop steward collects the dues. That is understandable. Where you have a plant with a small craft union, and the shop steward has forty or fifty men in the shop with him, it is a simple matter to pick up the dues from them. It is not so simple in mass industries. In the gold and nickel mines, the coal mines, and the steel plants, where the unions are organized on an industrial basis, and where you have perhaps four, five or six men administering the affairs of the union, it is impossible to collect dues in that way.
I know that, because we tried it. For years we had the check-off in our agreement in Nova Scotia with the mine workers. In 1932 we thought, we would try collecting dues, and we discontinued the check-off by referendum of our membership. We tried that for two years. It is absolutely impossible for union officials in a mass industry to administer the affairs of the organization by picking up the dues individually. It just cannot be done. By a referendum vote we restored the check-off.
In the organization of the steelworkers for example, I know that for years the steelworkers in Sydney tried to form a collective bargaining organization. This was before the provision for collecting dues was written into the trade union act of Nova Scotia. It never succeeded until that provision was written in. Then the membership put their cards in, and their dues were collected.
What we have to remember is what the hon. member for Spadina has pointed out. There is nothing compulsory about this. You put a card in, and you can withdraw it any time you see fit. The principle is well established. The government itself collects income tax in that way. Church dues are collected in that way.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Not in my church.
Mr. GILLI8: And the income tax-


Wilfrid Garfield Case: What church is that?


Clarence Gillis: There are church dues collected by the check-off.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Clarence Gillis: When you are finished squeaking over there and ask me something, I will try to answer it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Clarence Gillis: The Catholic church in my own community collects dues in that way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: You are
wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: Trying to make propaganda.


Clarence Gillis: That is why you fellows will be wrong-because you do not listen.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I would like to put these fellows right on that at once. I am a Catholic, and I have paid my church dues in that way for twenty-six years. It is a system which is still in use.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Because you were willing to do it.


Clarence Gillis: No, by authorization. That is the simple way. And that is exactly what we are asking you to do with regard to union dues. And when hon. members across the way say no, no, no, they are just about as well informed on that matter, as they displayed a minute ago. as they are on this business of the union check-off.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: It works the other way.


Clarence Gillis: You are out of touch with the world.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Clarence Gillis: And that is apparently the end of it. You believe in democracy, do you not? You put the check-off through for income tax, and that is not revocable. Why not extend the same privileges to the unions? But it is not exactly the same privilege, because we wish merely to have it on a voluntary basis. The government has it on a compulsory basis. If it is good for the government, the same privilege should be extended to the unions of this country.
Industrial Relations

The minister and the rest of the members of the House of Commons will have to come to a realization of the fact that the trade union movement in this country is a permanent institution. Whether you like it or not, it is here to stay. You will have to remember that the unions have gone through the fighting stage; that day is over. The matter has now entered the administrative stage. Today the unions have as well trained personnel in their leadership nationally, provincially and locally as we have in many departments of government. The signing of a collective agreement is a simple matter today when the unions are organized. The mechanics of it are worked out. I think the days of strikes are practically over, if decent and sensible mechanics are worked out and some rule of law applied to the union movement. If they are given recognition as business people, rather than having to go out on the streets to fight things out, that stage is over. It is relatively simple to sign a collective agreement today.
After the agreement is signed, the union then is not just sitting on the side; it is a community affair. A union which has a responsibility in any community is the biggest asset that community can have. When their dues are coming in, and they can budget on their income, they can take their men forward by way of educational programs, the promotion of co-operative credit unions, playgrounds, and all that kind of thing.


John Lambert Gibson: The C.C.F. party.


Clarence Gillis: -That is their business. It is just as legitimate for them to do that as it is for the manufacturers association to back you people, or these people over here.


Maurice Hartt: That is not proven.


Clarence Gillis: That is their business.


Maurice Hartt: It is not proven.


Clarence Gillis: Check the Beauharnois
report-


Maurice Hartt: It is not proven.


Clarence Gillis: -for action of that kind.


Maurice Hartt: I have seen manufacturers support C.C.F. members too.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Clarence Gillis: Well, that would be a miracle.


Maurice Hartt: The Dominion Children's Wear Association. You asked me to name one. That cap does not suit you, does it?


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the
[Jlr. Gillis.]
hon. member who has the floor. We shall get along better if that is not done. If hon. members wish to speak after the hon. member for Cape Breton South takes his seat, they may do so.


Maurice Hartt: He can look after himself.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member was trying to prove that the day of miracles is not past. As I was pointing out, if this check-off provision is written in, we are simply doing something nationally that was done provincially twenty years ago. Mind you, I hope the day will come when labour relations will be handed over by each province to the national government, and when we shall have adequate machinery here to handle the problem. I think it will be done in that way. We must not write anything into the national legislation or leave anything out of it which would preclude that kind of development.
I suggest that hon. members give this matter serious consideration, and that they vote quite freely. The amendment has been moved by a private member. I would impress strongly upon hon. members that a committee appointed by the house to study this matter, after much discussion of the subject, saw fit to write that provision into the bill. I do not think we as members of the House of Commons should lightly pass it up.
I feel strongly on the point, because I realize the value of the proposal. I see in this democracy in action. It is a recognition of the fact that a man who has a right to put a card in or take it out has a responsibility. There is no section of Canada today in which the check-off provision is operative under the trade union legislation where the unions are not 100 per cent organized. Not a man is out of them; they come in voluntarily, and they are glad to do it that way. In the final analysis they spend that money themselves, through their meetings and by their vote. They receive regular financial reports showing how every dollar is paid out and what came in. It enables the executive of the union which is a rather small body to do a decent job of administration and carry on considerable community work which is not possible under the other system where you must travel from door to door to pick up your dues.
The minister referred to the shop, stewards in craft- organizations and the method of collecting dues as advocated by the bill. There is no comparison. In most large industries you just could not have enough men to do it in that way.
I strongly urge that this clause remain in the bill because it is in the best interests of the people of this country.



[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: When this matter was being discussed in the committee I asked the hon. member for Spadina if it was to be compulsory or voluntary, and I was informed that it was to be voluntary. I cannot see that that is so, according to this bill.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I am an employer of some consequence; I have not had a union in my organization, and I have employed hundreds of men and women. There has been complete harmony in our relations. We pay over the union rates; we have cafeterias and recreation rooms, and. as I say, there is complete harmony between employer and employee. In the majority of factories on the North American continent that same harmony exists. This is not due entirely to the terrific activities of the unions on behalf of their brothers; it is due to the fact that the employer is just as human a man as any member of any union. He is keenly desirous of bettering the welfare of his workers, providing better working conditions and proper scales of pay adequate to meet the increased cost of living. That is the thought of most employers on the North American continent today.
Much of the discord that exists at the present time is not the result of discontent between employer and employee. The seamen's unions is an example. In that case the strike is not because of differences between employer and employee. The throwing of bricks, the bashing of heads and the utter disregard of the law of this country is due to discontent between union members. It is not all bread and butter garnished with cheese so far as union members are concerned.
I am in favour of holidays with pay; I am in favour of minimum wages; I am in favour of better working conditions and old age pensions for everybody; I am in favour of giving the people of this country anything that they can afford. But I am not in favour of promising them things that I know the}7 cannot afford. They have to pay the piper. The labour people pay the shot.
I know of unions today that have taken union dues without consulting their members and have given them to a political party. One union called a meeting supposed to be for purely business purposes. The by-laws of this union state clearly that no political questions shall be discussed at meetings. But the bylaws were ignored and they went on to discuss the C.C.F. party and all that they would promise. They attempted to discredit the two old parties. This went on until several members of the union rose and reminded the advocates of the C.C.F. party and their principles that they could not discuss the matter
further, that they were using the dues of the union for the purpose of sponsoring the C.C.F. party throughout Canada. We should not attempt to enact a law which would force a man to abide by the decision of radical advocates of certain political parties in this country. Every man should have the right to say, "I will contribute to this if I so wish." The government of Canada has no right at any time to say, "This is what you must do or pay a fine."


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member will have plenty of time when I am through.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, I have no objection to the line of debate being taken by the hon. member, but if he is allowed to carry on in that way-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the point of order?


Angus MacInnis: -without any reference to the section we are dealing with, then I shall claim an equal right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There is no other way to deal with this matter than to bring out the true facts to show that this amendment should be supported.
Another reason for supporting the amendment is that they are asking for legislation that will take away the liberties of the working men just as has been done in Russia. As has been mentioned by the minister, there are no trade unions in Russia. Hitler took away the rights of the trade unionists. Certain unions in Collingwood tried to take away the rights of the workers. That was not done by the employers; it was done by the trade unions. Many of these men do not want to contribute to any party. They have the right in this dominion, which I hope they will never lose, of supporting any party which will bring in good and honest legislation for both employer and employee.
I am not seeking the votes or support of any class of person in this country. I am seeking the respect of labour and employers for speaking truthfully and without fear. I hope I shall never deviate from that course. I am strongly against the check-off system because of the abuses by certain unions.


David Arnold Croll: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Fort William said that he had asked me in committee whether this would be compulsory or voluntary, and he said that I told him it was voluntary. He said that he now finds it is compulsory, and I gathered from his words that he thought that
Industrial Relations

I had misled him. I should like to quote from page 242 of the proceedings of the standing committee on industrial relations, as follows:
Mr. Mclvor:	I was just going to ask Mr. Croll a question. Does this mean that it will make it easier for the union to collect dues?
Mr. Croll: Yes.
Mr. Mclvor:	It will be compulsory for the
employee to pay dues?
Mr. Croll: No, it is not compulsory. He can either pay or not pay. The matter is up to him. He sends a note to the employer telling him to deduct the dues from his pay. When he does not want that done any longer, he writes the employer not to deduct the dues.
Mr. Mclvor:	I think any man who receives
the 'benefit of what the union stands for should pay his dues.
That is what I said then, and that is what I said today. If I am wrong in assuming that some reflection was cast upon me-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member says "no", but I gathered that from what he said, and I was a bit surprised.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I rise on a question of privilege. I thought I was speaking on the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Spadina in the industrial relations committee, but that does not appear in the latest reprint of the bill that we have before us. I tried to make it clear that I was opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Henry Golding: As there are some members who were not here when I read the amendment, perhaps I should try to make the position clear. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming is to delete an amendment which was carried in the committee and inserted in the bill. I hope that is perfectly clear.
The amendment to be voted on would delete the amendment proposed by the industrial relations committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: Has the bill been
reprinted, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: I will read again the amendment that comes from the committee to be inserted as subclause 3 of clause 6:
Upon request of a trade union entitled to bargain collectively under this act on behalf of a unit of employees and upon receipt of a request in writing signed by any employee in such unit, the employer of such employee shall, until the employee in writing withdraws such request, periodically deduct and pay out of the wages due to such employee, to the person designated by the trade union to receive the same, the union dues of such employee; and the employer

shall furnish to such trade union the names of the employees who have given and withdrawn such authority.
As I said, the amendment proposed by the member for Timiskaming would delete the amendment I have just read.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Rising to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South a moment ago, in order to strengthen his argument in favour of the check-off

I do not blame him for trying to strengthen his argument-said that even religious institutions were using the check-off, and he mentioned the Catholic church and said that it was requesting the check-off. May I say in reply that the Catholic church never requests any named contribution from any one of its adherents. I think it is only fair to the Catholic church that this correction be now made.


Clarence Gillis: That is not a correction. Under the laws of Nova Scotia, church dues are a legal check-off.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: But not mentioning a specific amount.


Clarence Gillis: All churches collect their fees in that way. The amount I give is entirely up to me, but the check-off is the method by which it is collected.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am an Anglican and the Anglican church has continued in existence a long time without the check-off. But let us get back to the issue before us. Let us not inject religion into a discussion which is purely material and not spiritual.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think we need generate so much heat over this section. We can approve it or disapprove it. If we approve it, it goes in the bill; if we disapprove it, it is left out.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us vote on it.


Angus MacInnis: In a few minutes, after I have explained it so that you will understand it. During the war years the check-off was one of the most important issues in collective bargaining, and it became a part of the agreements which most large industrial firms made with their employees. As the hon. gentleman who moved subclause 3 in the committee has pointed out, Mr. Justice Rand included the check-off in his report on the Ford dispute in 1946, and I think he went further than that. It was not compulsory for every employee to become a member of the union, but it was compulsory for every employee to pay his contribution for the union's upkeep.



[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
The Minister of Labour has pointed out that the cheek-off is not in vogue in the United Kingdom. That is true, and personally I would much prefer to have every trade union member pay his dues voluntarily as a part of his duty to his union. In a country such as Canada, where large industries have grown up very fast and where some of the members are not particularly concerned with the union beyond the increased wages and better working conditions it brings them, it is to be regretted that they are not interested enough at times even to attend the union meetings. But it is important that the trade union in an industry should be able to speak for all the employees covered by the agreement, and that can only be done if all of the employees are members of the union and pay their dues.
Let me read the first four lines of the proposed subclause 3 to show that there is nothing compulsory about it:
Upon request of a trade union entitled to bargain collectively under this act on behalf of a unit of employees and upon receipt of a request in writing signed by any employee in such unit, the employer of sueli employee shall, until the employee in writing withdraws such request, periodically deduct and pay out of the wages due to such employee, to the person designated by the trade union to receive the same, the union dues of such employee. . . .
Could anything be freer than that? If we are to assume that the employee has a duty to his union, he surely could not do less than that. I suggest that every hon. member consider carefully before he votes for or against the amendment, because the check-off has become the customary practice in Canada, and no one, I believe, has been injured by it.
I was glad to hear the closing remarks made by the member for Simcoe North when he said that he was opposed to the check-off, because I have in my hands the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 14, 1948, and I find in it an advertisement authorized by the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Association. The advertisement says that among the planks of the Progressive Conservative party are:
The right of the worker to organize in unions of his own choosing.
The check-off-and union security.
The advertisement carries a picture of Rupert Ramsay, the Progressive Conservative leader in Saskatchewan.
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Proving conclusively
that Conservatives can think for themselves and are not led around by the nose.


Angus MacInnis: Proving conclusively that the policy of the Conservative party is determined by how close they are to an election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Angus MacInnis: All right. Keep quiet and I will not hit back. I now come to an article by the Progressive Conservatives in a forum, which is run by the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, with all parties in it:
1.	The guarantee of the right to collectivt bargaining.
2.	Two weeks holidays with pay.
3.	The check-off and union security-the right of every worker to join the union of his own choice, without fear of discrimination for union activity.
That, I assume, is the policy of the Conservative party all over Canada. It is at any rate the policy in Saskatchewan for the next two weeks. And if that is the policy now, it is the policy because it has a certain political appeal in Saskatchewan. I suggest to the rank and file members on the government side of the house that they avail themselves of the freedom they have at this moment to support subsection 3 of this section and to vote against the amendment.


John Lambert Gibson: I have the highest regard for the experience and wisdom of our Minister of Labour, but in this particular instance I am afraid I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Twenty years ago I was timekeeper in a logging camp and I did that in the evenings after I got through work. I found it most desirable, instead of having to procure cash and hand it to the boys for the payment of union dues, to have them give me their names, and at the end of the month I paid the money over to the proper official who forwarded it to the union. It was a voluntary check-off.
Many of the large employers in British Columbia resisted it vigorously at that time, but it never seemed to me that there was anything wrong with that system and I regarded it as both efficient and fair. I could never bring myself to feel that if anyone asked me courteously, as in fact they always did, to take that- money off his pay and hand it to another person, there was anything wrong in my doing so merely because I did it in respect of union dues. I did not consider it any more wrong than if it were done with regard to the Red Cross, or tobacco or chocolate bars or anything else of value.
I, too, am an employer of labour in a small way, and I should not like to have the committee of the whole turn down the amendment that has been proposed by the industrial relations committee, because I feel that the Canadian people would regard this House of Commons as being ten or twenty years behind
537S
Industrial Relations

the thinking of the provincial legislatures, certainly the thinking of our more progressive legislatures, though judging from some of the acts that have been passed by some of the legislatures one would not suppose that they were far advanced in their thinking.
I am in agreement with the amendment proposed by the industrial relations committee and opposd to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have spoken at least twice in this House of Commons in times gone by in favour of the voluntary revocable check-off and I have not changed my mind. I will therefore oppose the motion proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming, and may I add that I will do so in spite of the speeches made in opposition to that motion by the members for Cape Breton South and Vancouver Bast.
I do not think it does our cause any good to start political bickering on a subject of this kind, which is quite serious to a great many people. I approach this question in a somewhat different way from that which has hitherto been adopted by persons who have spoken on it, with the exception perhaps of what was said by the last speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
In conversation with different people, I have found that the word "compulsory" has been used by many with reference to this matter. There is nothing compulsory about it. A man voluntarily signs an assignment to give some of his own money to someone else; and at any time, in writing, in the same way as that in which he made the assignment, he may then withdraw that assignment and collect his own money. If there is anything in that which is compulsory I at least am utterly unable to find it.
I know it will be said by some people, who perhaps have no great understanding of labour, that advantage will be taken of this, and that certain persons will back a chap up against the wall and say, "Sign on the dotted line." It may be that there are odd instances of that kind in industrial relations. If there are, I believe it is because of the quick growth of unions, certainly since the beginning of the last war, and any great movement of the kind will produce some irresponsible leaders. The actions of such irresponsible people find their way into the headlines of the newspapers, but I prefer to regard these union organizations as being in the main composed of sensible people, just as sensible as we are on a broad plane in this house.
Let us suppose that I am working for someone. I have an employer and I owe a bill to 
a druggist or a grocer or someone else. I give my grocer or my druggist an order on my employer to pay that bill. He will not refuse to do it; he dare not refuse, because it is enforceable at law as an assignment of money. The same thing is true today with respect to wages, even though the assignment goes to a union secretary.
My position, therefore, is simply this. All that this amendment does, as moved in the committee, is to affirm a right which the workman has always had at law to assign his money to whomsoever he wishes, be it his wife, a grocer or a union.
h e have to go back in our consideration of this matter. Everyone in this house has said he believes in collective bargaining. If we believe in collective bargaining we must mean something when we say that, and collective bargaining is bargaining by people without the cards being all in the hands of a man on one side of the table. It is a complete negation of the words "collective bargaining" if it be between one chap who has all the cards and a gun on his hip, and the fellow across the table who has only a couple of white chips. To give it meaning, it must mean that people have the right to meet together and negotiate on something like an even basis.
It has been said that expense is involved. I believe there is some small expense. I have no doubt that the unions would be quite prepared to meet that little expenditure for an extra bookkeeper or whatever it might mean. But I put this to the committee in the way I have done because I have thought this matter over for years. It is not a recent conversion with me. I have spoken about it in the house ever since I came here in 1945. I have spoken about it all across the country, and I have yet to hear from any person a single argument that I could regard as satisfactory, aside from the small question of expense
That is so with one exception; and that has come to my notice only within the past few days. We have jurisdiction here over railways because they are interprovincial. I have learned that those railways going from one ocean to the other are dealing with twenty-eight different unions. It may be that in that case difficulties will arise because of differences in the amount of dues collected by the various unions. That may mean considerable difficulty and perhaps some expense in connection with those brotherhoods. But it must be remembered that the railway people have not this system, nor have they asked for it. They are a set of unions that have carried on up to this time without feeling that there was any necessity for anything of the kind. But to come back to what was said before, they

I n du st ria I Relat ions
are craft unions; they are in smaller groups and are spread clear across the country.
So I close, Mr. Chairman, by making this simple statement. I will vote against the amendment as proposed, but not for the reason, as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Vancouver East, that there is any political kudos to be obtained from it. I have preached it, as they both know, ever since I came here.
I continue to do so because I believe it is just, that it is a matter of right and not a matter of a handout from the employer to a union employee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I desire to express my opinion with regard to this question. I am greatly surprised this afternoon to find out that the minister is now objecting to the amendment which carried in the committee. This question was thoroughly gone into in the committee, and it passed there by a majority vote. Surely the opinion of that committee, which was given the duty of examining most carefully this bill in all its aspects, should be given a little consideration at this time.
I have had a little bit of experience with this union check-off business myself, because when I was teaching in Alberta we had a union known as the Alberta teachers' association. In that union there was a check-off. Those of us who paid dues into the union were obliged to fight all the battles. Then those who did not participate by paying their dues, shared in the profits. I can say that the picture has now been changed in Alberta and we have the check-off there. In fact, in their forward labour legislation, I think Alberta leads all the other provinces in Canada. This is not something new. It was thoroughly discussed in the committee. It was passed there by a majority vote, and for the life of me I do not see why it should be brought up again. It is something that is not compulsory. It is voluntary in every sense of the word, as was pointed out by the hon. member who preceded me. I do not intend to cover the arguments which he and other hon. members have used. I wish to say I am firmly of the opinion that the voluntary check-off is the proper method of procedure. I shall support it, and I shall vote against the amendment which is now before the committee.


Mr. JAQUES:: I should like to ask one question. I was not a member of the committee on industrial relations. I have listened to the discussion this afternoon, and I am not clear about this matter. According to those who support the amendment it makes no difference. If it makes no difference, I should
like to know the purpose of it. Am I to understand that the members of the union who wish to pay their dues-and I suppose they all do-are so irresponsible that they cannot be trusted to do so but must have them deducted at the source? This provision seems strange to'me. As I say, if there is no purpose in it, and if there is no reason behind it, why should it be introduced? Would the mover please explain that to me before I vote?


Humphrey Mitchell: To reply to my hon. friend, I think the matter was fully explained by the hon. member for Calgary West. He put forward one point of view and I think I put forward the other. His point of view was a legal one. He felt that these trade unionists or employees had a perfect right to ask the employer to deduct this money from their pay envelopes at the end of the month. My point of view-


Norman Jaques: May I ask this question-


Humphrey Mitchell: Let my hon. friend just sit down for a moment.


Norman Jaques: I want the minister to make the point clear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot make it any clearer. The hon. member will have to stick my head on his shoulders.
/


Norman Jaques: The question I want to ask is this. Is there any law against the employee asking the employer to deduct his dues at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, there is no law.


Norman Jaques: What is the object of this?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the other point of view. As I said, there are two points of view. My point of view is that this matter should be the subject of collective bargaining-


Angus MacInnis: Agreed.


Humphrey Mitchell: -a matter of agreement between employer and employee. One hon. member this afternoon talked about being progressive. I know of some countries in Europe which were thought to be progressive, but which now have a big thick curtain in front of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Little) agreed to: yeas, 71; nays, 35.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
53S0
Industrial Relations

On section 16-Conciliation officer conference with parties.


William Henry Golding: There was an amendment made by the committee to this section. If bon. members will look at section 16 they will find that the last two lines in the original bill read:
... a conciliation officer to confer with the parties engaged in collective bargaining.
The amendment reads: "one or more conciliation officers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 17 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Function.
William Henry Golding: The amendment made by the committee to section 32 struck out subsection 8.


Angus MacInnis: I intend to move an amendment to re-insert subsection 8. The subsection originally read as follows:
In any proceedings before the conciliation board, no person except with the consent of the parties shall 'be entitled to be represented by a barrister, solicitor or advocate and, notwithstanding such consent, a conciliation board may refuse to allow a barrister, solicitor or advocate to represent a party in any such proceedings.


William Henry Golding: Moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East that section 32 be amended by re-inserting subsection 8.


Angus MacInnis: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in explanation. This subsection has been in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act since it was first passed in 1907. So far as I know, there was never any strong objection raised to it, nor do I think it has ever interfered with conciliation proceedings. Labour organizations are afraid that if lawyers are allowed to take part in conciliation proceedings it will prove detrimental to the smooth operation of such proceedings.
The minister will remember that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada gave this bill their endorsation this year and also to Bill No. 338 last year; but he will also remember that a few days ago the executive withdrew the endorsation of the congress from the bill, largely because of the two amendments made to it in committee. One of the amendments made in committee had to do with section 2, subsection (1), paragraph (i), subparagraph (ii). This morning the minister remedied the objection to that section by restoring to the bill what it contained when it was first introduced in the house. Perhaps a stronger objection of the trades and labour congress is taken
 -
to the removal of subsection 8 of section 32. I suggest to the minister that he would be improving the bill by putting it back where it was for the last forty years. It gave good satisfaction to all concerned.
I do not wish to create any controversy in regard to this matter, but it should be remembered that representatives of labour and representatives of the Canadian Bar Association have opposite reasons for having this subsection in or out of the bill, as the case may be. Labour representatives are anxious to have conciliation boards finish their work as quickly as possible, because they begin to receive the benefits when the conciliation proceedings are finished and an agreement is drafted. If lawyers are permitted to take part in the proceedings they will receive the benefits as long as the conciliation board is sitting, and the longer it takes to reach an agreement, the more they will get out of it. I can understand why they would want this section deleted. But let us remember that we are now considering a bill to make conciliation of labour disputes as smooth as possible. We are not drafting a bill to give employment to somebody, no matter to what organization he may belong. I suggest to the minister that it would be a good gesture on his part to take the position that he took when this bill was drafted and support the restoration of this subsection to section 32.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I am far enough away from the legal profession to be able to speak with a certain amount of detachment on this issue. I should think all my legal earnings, if added together, would not support a family of five at the present cost of living for more than about two weeks.
I should like to make a few comments on this. In the first place, I find the speeches of the hon. member for Vancouver East so satisfactory that I wish he would not descend to what- he did this afternoon when he suggested that members of the legal profession would regard a conciliation board as a means of spinning out the thing as long as they could in order to make fees. There are lawyers like that, no doubt, but I do not think there are many. I would doubt whether any intelligent organization would be hiring a lawyer like that, because the kind of lawyers who are worthwhile do not have to spin things out. They usually have more jobs than they can perform.
The second thing I wish to say-and here I might seem to be inclining to the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East-is that it is quite often wise not to have lawyers. There are cases where people have a sort of superstitious feeling about retaining lawyers,

Industrial Relations
because of the superstition that they may be able to work magic. They do not work magic at all.
There may be many cases where they should not go in; but it seems to me foolish to suggest that we should have a law or continue a law to keep them out. Why should we keep anyone out who, it is considered by any of the parties to a proceeding, can help? It seems to me just like refusing to let the light in. It seems to me a counsel of darkness, and to my mind it is one of the most retrograde things one might have to consider. Surely we should be ready to let anybody in who has a contribution to make. And if an intelligent union or an intelligent employer wishes to employ a lawyer, why should it or he not do so?
The next point is that there may have been a time, when it would have been suggested- although I observed that the hon. member for Vancouver East did not suggest it-that if lawyers were allowed to come in, the odds would all be tilted against the union. I doubt if anyone will suggest, after the discussion we have heard this afternoon, that in these days unions are poor and down-trodden and cannot get the best lawyers available.
My final point is that it seems to me that to suggest that the presence of lawyers would have the effect of spinning out an investigation and unnecessarily delaying it is to suggest that the chairman is a fool. I do not believe conciliation boards are presided over by fools. They are usually intelligent people. I was one once myself, for a few moments, but I got through very quickly-although I must add that there were no counsel present.
I suggest seriously, however, that to offer the argument that, in order to have proper expedition in carrying out these matters no counsel should be present, is a very poor compliment indeed to those who preside over these boards. I should feel very regretful if we had to continue to countenance a piece of legislation of this kind.


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps lawyers could take care of this thing themselves; but I am in charge of piloting this bill through the House of Commons. The Minister of Labour is fair game for everybody, both in and out of the house. I do not know what some people would do if they had not an opportunity to criticize the secretary of labour in the United States, or if they could not take a pot-shot at the Minister of Labour in Canada, particularly when they lack responsibility and courage themselves-and I do not reflect upon anyone in the committee when I say that.
I must say, however, that, speaking frankly,
I believe this is class legislation. That is my view in the matter. lit was put in there because it was in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It was asked for by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and by other labour organizations. But it was put in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act a good many years ago.
I have had some experience in labour negotiations in my day, and I know the hon. member for Vancouver East has had expert ence, too. I do not know of anyone I would rather be up against than a lawyer. I speak with no disrespect for lawyers, but first of all you have to teach them what you know, yourself. I would rather express my own opinions in my own simple way on the issues in dispute.
And do not forget this, that a disbarred lawyer can get in.
Mr. MaeINNIS: He is not a lawyer, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know of a disbarred
lawyer-


John Ewen Sinclair: But he has legal training.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know of a case not long ago for which I was severely criticized, in which a disbarred lawyer's argument was used against me, and against others both in and out of the house. He can plead before one of these boards, and can represent anyone. I know of a member of the house-he happens to be on this side-who is a member of a labour organization and who has served his organization with credit and distinction.
I believe I said on another occasion that you cannot pass a law to turn a sinner into a righteous man. Neither can you pass a law to make sure that someone will not hire the best possible advice. Let us consider the men in the labour movement at the present time. I know of a recent board hearing in the city of Montreal -which was handled by a man who grew up in the labour movement. I am convinced that, although these people speak in simple terms, they possibly know the intricacies of an industry better than any other people.
Then let us consider the industry with twenty or thirty employees. Someone asks for an agreement. What does the manager do? He flies to his lawyer, because he does not know how to develop the case himself. I hope I shall live to see the day in Canada when, even outside the legal profession, there will be those who will specialize in this kind of work. I do not think it is a forbidden field, or a field into which a man in civilian life, irrespective of his calling, could not make his
Industrial Relations

contribution toward what might be described as normal labour conditions in the country.
I have said there is a powerful argument which can be made on the suggestion that this is class legislation which, in effect, denies the right of a livelihood to a certain group of persons in Canada. We have been discussing freedom, and all that kind of thing-what the hon. member for Lake Centre talks about-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Human rights.


Humphrey Mitchell: God bless human rights, yes. We have been discussing that. Then in the same breath we deny the right to a group of people to earn a livelihood. That is my approach to the matter. I believe it is the commonsense approach and, in the light of conditions as they exist today, I think it is a good one.
What is happening in the United States in this connection? I do not know whether I saw the picture or whether someone told me about it, but the other day John L. Lewis was walking with seven good lawyers along with him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was it Lewis?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, absolutely. What does one always do? What do we do-entirely outside labour disputes-when we get into trouble, whether it be civil or some other kind of trouble? We go to a lawyer. Of course we do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is not a compulsory measure.


Thomas Langton Church: For many years past I have lad connection with labour organizations and .r.dustrial strikes in the police department, fire and street departments, the post office, and the street railway departments. It has been my experience that, while lawyers have their usefulness in certain kinds of activities, they are absolutely useless in most industrial disputes.
I have had a wide experience in labour activities. While I am a lawyer myself, I believe those disputes might well be left to the parties, so that they might choose conciliators from among themselves and settle matters. I believe the section was all right as it was drafted. A board of conciliation should be able to settle a dispute as between man and man.
Let us consider the workmen's compensation act. I can remember when the present minister was a controller in the city of Hamilton. The matter came up as to whether they would allow lawyers before that workmen's compensation board which was dealing with the case of an

employee who had beien injured. It was decided' by the Ontario legislature that it would not be in the interests of either the employer or the employee in the case of an accident in industry to allow lawyers to plead before the board when a settlement could be brought about without their doing so.
I understand that, according to the labour law, both federal and provincial, the minister or the deputy minister of labour can intervene and try to bring the parties together. That is the whole principle of the industrial disputes act. I was a member of the committee on industrial relations for nineteen years-I am not a member now-and my experience is that, while lawyers have their place, it is not here. In saying this, I am not against anybody or any business or profession.


Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: I am surprised at the attitude taken by some hon. members against the legal profession. We are led to believe that if lawyers are permitted to appear before conciliation boards the proceedings will be protracted for their personal benefit, but I have not heard one good reason why the legal profession should be singled out. This discussion has been going on for fifteen minutes and nothing has been achieved; yet not one lawyer member has taken part in it. I think that is a clear example of the possibility of obtaining a quick decision in these matters.
I do not think any one profession should be singled out by legislation passed by this house. The parties to a dispute may call in accountants or skilled men from other professions, but the members of the legal profession are barred. Yet the question that may be troubling the conciliation board may be a question of law.
The great majority of lawyers spring from the labouring classes. Thousands of lawyers in this country have worked for years and years for the labouring men without receiving one cent of remuneration. Time and time again I have opened up cases which had been before conciliation boards where the decision had been against workmen when I knew they were right. I have done that in hundreds of cases without receiving one cent of remuneration, and there are thousands like me in this country. It is unfair to single out the legal profession and bar them from appearing before a conciliation board when the parties themselves want such assistance.


Mr. GREEN:: I hesitate to say anything about this amendment, because I am not a member of the committee on industrial relations. I understand that, as the bill was originally brought in, it contained this sub-

Industrial Relations
section 8 which bars lawyers from appearing before a board. Then the committee in its wisdom decided that the subsection should be removed, the effect being that lawyers would be permitted to appear.
I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke with his usual fervour and conviction when he moved his amendment today. As he spoke, I thought of the many times when he has spoken in this house on the rights of the downtrodden and of minorities, all worthy subjects, but today I am afraid his tongue was in his cheek.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I object to the hon. member for Vancouver South attributing any insincerity to me in connection with this matter. I debated the matter in committee in the same way as I have debated it today. If the hon. member is accustomed to speaking with his tongue in his cheek, I am not.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member should withdraw that remark.


Howard Charles Green: That was the point I was making, that the hon. member does not usually speak with his tongue in his cheek. If the hon. member objects, I am quite happy to withdraw the remark. This is a most serious matter for the members of the legal profession. I am a member of that profession and I have no regrets over belonging to it. It is a great profession which has contributed a great deal, not- only to the public life of Canada but to the welfare of those who have the hardest time. There is no reason why that profession should be singled out in this bill. I have a resolution here which was passed by the Vancouver bar association, one recital of which sums up the picture from the point of view of the legal men. It reads:
And whereas such provision is the negation of the democratic rights of parties before conciliation boards and is an unwarranted restriction imposed on and discrimination against a section of the public in the conduct of a profession which has contributed much to the public life and welfare of Canada . . .
I think that sets forth the situation. About ten j^ears ago I had the privilege of acting as chairman of an arbitration board considering a dispute between the new'spaper proprietors in Vancouver and the typographical union. The case for the union was presented by a representative who was brought in from San Francisco and whose business it was to appear before arbitration boards. He was not a larvyer. but he was a skilful labour representative. I do not think any lawyer in Canada could have made a better presentation than that representative from San Francisco. No
5849-342J
one had any quarrel with his being brought from San Francisco to present the case. It does seem to me that there is no reason why a Canadian lawyer should not be allowed to appear, either for the union or for the other side. I urge hon. members of the committee who are not of the legal profession to report the bill as it was reported from the committee.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver South and others who have argued that lawyers are being debarred from conciliation boards are reading the section correctly. There is nothing in the subsection which the hon. member for Vancouver East wants restored that would debar lawyers from attending hearings if they are requested! so to do, or if the board chairman feels that they are necessary. There is nothing in the subsection that would indicate any particular1 discrimination against that profession. If the hon. member will read the subsection he wilt see that that is the case.
By this legislation we are setting up labour jurisprudence for the handling of labour disputes, wage disputes and so on. This is not criminal law; this is not the type of statute which the legal profession is trained to handle. When we were refusing the right to engineers to bargain collectively I did not hear one word from hon. members who have taken part in this discussion. Apparently there were no human rights involved there. I did not hear them speak when we were refusing the right of check-off on a voluntary basis.
We must recognize the fact that for the first time we are setting up a national rule of law to govern labour relations. Under the section as it was in the original bill and which we are seeking to have restored, authority is placed in the hands of the board and the parties to the dispute to call counsel if they so desire. I do not think the argument that was used by the very capable member of the legal profession who has just taken his seat was valid, as I think he will agree if he reads the clause we wish restored.
While on this matter of lawyers, among whom I have some great friends, I have a clipping in my hand from a United States publication called Labor, which the Minister of Labour probably knows, and this is what it has to say in an editorial on the railway dispute in the United States. The editorial is headed "Lawyers", in big letters and says:
"Almost from beginning to end, one of the real troubles in this dispute has been that railroads have shifted their responsibilities over to lawyers," a union leader declared. "For example, during the emergency board hearings, they had a battery of 16 lawyers to handle their case, while we had only one.
Industrial Relations

"Thus, collective bargaining on the 'Iron Horse' has degenerated into litigation. You can't have peace on the rails that way."


David Arnold Croll: He is complaining that you do not have enough lawyers.


Clarence Gillis: No, he is not. He is complaining that the railroad companies, with unlimited funds, can hire a battery of high-priced lawyers to fight a struggling union which can afford to hire only one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are going to spend a million to defeat the president, so they must have money.


Clarence Gillis: It was sixteen lawyers to one :in that case. But the point I want to make is that there is no suggestion in the clause that lawyers should be kept out. It is merely placing the matter in the hands of the judge and the parties to the dispute, and, in the final analysis, in the judgment of the chairman of the board. The minister says he has a wonderful board. I do not see, then, why he should mistrust them. This provision has been in the act for a long time, and if labour is going to accept its responsibilities it should begin to handle its own problems.
I have no doubt that the unions in Canada today have in their own organizations personnel qualified to handle any labour problem that would come within the scope of this act. My experience with negotiations has been this. If we needed a lawyer we went out and got one, and the best time and place to see him was before the negotiations began, having him sit down in an office and prepare a memorandum which would help to get the facts straightened out in our own minds before we went into the negotiations-not after we went in. No one is able to handle negotiations dealing with wages and economic conditions better than the people who are actually involved in the dispute and know the basic facts. If legal advice is required the best time to take it is before the negotiations begin, when you are preparing your brief for submission to the board. I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver South will take another look at this clause, and if he does I am sure he will find that it gives ample scope for the legal profession to appear if,-in the judgment of the board, that is necessary.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is coming pretty close to home, since up to now I have got my living by the practice of law. Of course I do not need to do that any more, now that I am getting so well paid for being in Ottawa six months of the year.
It seems to me that perhaps we are overlooking the most important thing in this whole discussion which has centred around large cor-

porations and large labour unions:	But that
does not present a true picture of the industrial situation in Canada at all. Where I live we have only one large industrial organization, engaged in the mining of coal. We had another fast-growing organization, which is not as yet unionized, searching for oil. On the other hand, we have many small industries employing, say from fifteen to twenty men, and in Ontario and Quebec there are many organizations of that kind.
The ordinary labour union is, as a rule, a member of one of the two or three major national labour organizations in this country. In the event of a dispute and conciliation proceedings before a board the union has immediate access to the best advocates that I know of in the labour business, and they are contained within the labour organization itself. They are excellent advocates because they have had much experience in this work. But the employer who must meet the union in conciliation proceedings is a man who, as a rule, has risen from his bench and perhaps got his own shop and has made it grow. He is not equipped to present his own case to the tribunal. He has had no experience in public speaking, and' has no conception of putting together things on a paper called a brief in a manner that will be readable, so that he is unable to present his case in the best light. For that reason, if for no other, he should be able to employ a lawyer .to assist him.
I have heard this story before about lawyers spinning things out and taking a long time. But the employers could easily circumvent the law. All they have to do is to name a lawyer as the third person on the board, which usually consists of three people. But that would not be right; that would not be honest. So the proper thing to do is to have a lawyer who will present your case in the best way possible.
Furthermore, we know that the large labour organizations are well equipped, not only with lawyers but with research people, economists, accountants and all that kind of thing. So the day is long since gone when there is any virtue or anything bona fide in the cry that labour cannot employ lawyers to meet those of the corporations. The hon. member for Cape Breton South gave as an illustration the railway dispute in the United States, where the railroads had sixteen lawyers to one representing the union. But we all know that this union is among the wealthiest in the world. It could buy out, lock, stock and barrel, all the lawyers it could find in any large city in the United States. My view is that anybody who employs sixteen lawyers in the one case is an ass. In my judgment he could not be anything else, because more than half of them

Industrial Relations
would be surplusage and a clog on the wheel in operating any sort of hearing.
One word about the other aspect of it. I am not so greatly concerned about the money that we lawyers make or may not make in connection with this matter, though perhaps some will be. But I am concerned about its being said to us, "You have been trained to examine a new proposition quickly, to find the bones of it, and from those bones to make up a case and present it". Your lawyer of 1918, if he makes money, is not the fellow who is in the courthouse all the time. That was true years ago, but is quite untrue now. There are not in the dominion ten lawyers who are making a living at criminal practice, if we take the big cities and all. Most of the cases now involve persons who have long since lost the ability to pay a lawyer when they get into that kind of trouble.
The lawyer of today is a businessman. His whole training these days is to go into investigations like milk, butter and so on, coal mining and the rest, which are held throughout the country, because he is trained to think in a businesslike way.
As to his spinning things out, I can give my hon. friend one case. I haite to be personal, but this was in connection with the conciliation board in Alberta, and he knew the parties on one side, headed by Bob Livett. It was before the late Mr. Justice MacGillivray. They were at a deadlock; his lordship telephoned me-I happened to know them-and in 'that same afternoon we got a settlement. In that case there was no lawyer except myself who was called by the bench, and I did not prolong the case. I settled it. That is a matter of history, a matter of record.
This story about lawyers going into these things to prolong them, whether the implication is or is not that it is done in order to get money, is the most utter and complete nonsense. I know that organizations had a hard job to get lawyers in the old days in connection with workmen's compensation where every case went before the court. They did not have money. We have been debarred ever since that day from taking our place before certain tribunals, but that went out with the horse and buggy. The unions are stronger financially and in numbers. They are equipped with the very best talent, and I can see no reason why we should not be admitted to serve either them or the employer.


William Henry Golding: Is the committee ready for the question? I would point out that what the hon. member for Vancouver East is doing in this amendment is to restore in the bill a clause that was removed in committee.
Amendment (Mr. Maclnnis) negatived yeas, 7; nays, 60.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 33 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On section 45-Prosecution of employers' organization or trade union.
Clarence Gillis: There was considerable discussion of this clause in committee and I have a simple amendment to move. I am sure everyone will support it. I move that section 45, subsection 1, be amended by striking out the word "and" in the third line and substituting the word "board" for "organization" and by striking out the words "or union".


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. member please read the section with the proposed amendment?


Clarence Gillis: The subsection would then
read:
A prosecution for an offence under this act may be brought against an employers' organization or a trade union in the name of the board . . .
The rest of the section would be the same as it is now. My reason for moving this amendment is that in my opinion this section is the meat of the whole act. Unless the board has the responsibility for enforcing the act and the authority to enforce it, I think we are leaving matters of labour relations in Canada pretty much where they are at the present time.
The amendment I now suggest would put-the board in the position where, if it considered either side in an illegal position under the terms of the act, it could institute proceedings in the court against the party committing the infraction. I insist upon this, because we argued it in committee. Unless we place this responsibility and authority in the hands of the board, we are leaving labour relations where they are today, a matter of going through conciliation, a matter of going to the board, or of either employers or unions ignoring boards set up by the government, as has happened in the dispute between the lake shipping companies and the seamen's union.
The government appoints a board. The operators refuse to have anything to do with it. They ignore the law completely, with the result that you have anarchy in that industry today, and the Minister of Labour and the government are the goats. If the board were enforcing the act, as I am advocating now, it would have been in a position to take the offending party to court and have the penalties contained in the act applied.
I do not think there is any court in the country in a better position to determine which side in a dispute is in the wrong than the
Industrial Relations

labour relations board that will administer this act when we get through with it. They sit in and listen to the evidence from both sides. They know who is reasonable and who is unreasonable. In addition to that, if this board has some such authority as we are trying to give to it, both unions and employers will approach it with a more respectful attitude. But if the board is to be merely constituted as a forum, and has no authority whatsoever in the matter of enforcement, these people will do as they have been doing; they just go in and argue the thing; and if they are not satisfied, they walk out. What happens after they are through there? The board has wasted its own time and the money of the government. Then it is a matter of the union's applying to the Minister of Labour for the right to prosecute the employer in the courts, or vice versa. In the seamen's union strike we have a good [DOT]example right at. the present time. This legislation does not work out and cannot work out. Unless we intend to enforce the act, I think we are wasting our time in setting it up.
As I said in a previous debate, I believe that we are now applying the rule of law to labour relations. We are setting up a labour jurisprudence. In my opinion this labour relations board should be a court in which would be determined any infractions of the law and so forth. Then it would be a matter of taking the case to the regular courts to have the penalties imposed. But unless we are prepared to change section 45 in order to give the board that authority to use if it sees fit to do so, we are wasting our time. As I say, I do not think it would be used often. But if both sides knew the board had that power and right, I think they would do everything reasonable and possible to settle their disputes in there before the board, without going out and fighting it out, as they are now doing in the lake shipping strike.


Humphrey Mitchell: If this amendment
passes, we might as well just wipe out the board and the approach by way of conciliation by the labour department. It is beyond my imagination why people keep on talking and asking why we should not prosecute somebody and why we should not put somebody in jail, when we are dealing with labour disputes; and I would point out that it is not all on either one side or the other, I think the proper view-and it is the one we take- is that if you want a labour court, say so, and establish one.
Let me say this to my hon. friend. The establishment of a labour court is not the answer to the question. It is the easiest thing in the world to make the broad and general statement that if we had a labour court fMr. Gillis.]
everything in the garden would be lovely. Recently there was a disastrous railway strike in the state of Queensland. A labour organization there defied the machinery-we will put it in that way-of the labour court. I have here a copy of the act passed by a labour government in the state of Queensland. People talk about legislation with regard to peaceful picketing and what have you; but I do not know of any piece of legislation in the world that compares with it. I am not saying that by way of criticism of what happened in Australia-I do not have to live there-but I think it is absolutely unsound to make into a judicial body a board which is composed of private individuals.


Clarence Gillis: Nobody has suggested that.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not what you are suggesting; it is the end of the road of your suggestion.


Clarence Gillis: No, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: You would establish a board as a judge and jury. That is what it amounts to. I do not think there is any substance in leave to prosecute in that court which is primarily concerned with the adjudication of labour disputes on the principle of conciliation. I think, if the amendment carried, it would completely destroy the usefulness of the board, and we should have to establish an entirely different agency.
There is another point I wish to mention. If my memory serves me correctly, since the establishment of the I.D.I.A. in Canada we have had only about eighteen prosecutions, and none of them was of a major character. If you make access to the courts too easy, all you do is to make the government, the board, or the minister a gravy train for every little dispute that takes place in connection with the agreement itself or the negotiation of the agreement. In my judgment you must have the common sense to pick out the substantial cases from those that are not substantial. In my department, since I have been the minister,
I have often found that one side or the other wanted to prosecute; but by the procedure of conciliation we have been able to adjudicate the dispute. I think I said in committee that it is bad law-and I am not a lawyer but I have heard the expression used-to pass a law for the exception to the rule. In my judgment you would have to transfer completely the whole application of this act if this amendment carries.


Clarence Gillis: May I say that the minister was talking on a completely different subject from the one I was dealing with. I did not advocate the setting up of a labour court.

Industrial Relations


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course you did not.


Clarence Gillis: I advocated giving power to the board to enforce this act through the regular courts of this country. I want to give them some authority to do something about t their acts; that is all. The seamen's union strike should be an example to the minister.
I know that if I were in the minister's position I would at least want some power and some authority, by means of which to protect myself where I have the responsibility, and the minister has not that power and authority now. I am not suggesting the setting up of a court at all. I am suggesting that this board should be able to determine when an infraction of the act is committed, and that the board should then be in a position to prosecute through the regular courts of this country. That is all I am suggesting.


Angus MacInnis: Whenever the minister is short of an argument with which to meet any case, he jumps away off to some other part of the world, pulls something out of there, and then puts that forward as an argument. The legislation in Queensland, and what happened there, have no relation at all to this matter. In that state the people were met with a situation with which they had to deal, and they had the courage to deal with it. But with this legislation under which we are now operating, when the minister is absolutely defied by an employer of labour, neither the minister, nor the department, nor anyone else can do anything about it. What is the use of passing legislation unless that legislation can be enforced? I know that all through this legislation penalties are provided. But the action is not dependent, as it would be under any other law, on the government's taking the action if the law is broken; it is dependent on the parties to the dispute. It is up to them to take action in the courts, if one party has the means to do that.
Is this not a case such as that referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West a moment ago? He referred to the small employer. There are small organizations that have not the money to bring cases to court. Surely that should be the responsibility of the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may say so, I think my hon. friend should be the last man on earth to say to me that I go to other parts of the world. For example, I have heard enough about Sweden and what is happening in New Zealand and in other countries. I do not say this in a critical sense. I merely quote the experience of labour courts in these countries where labour governments are in power.
My hon. friend spoke about a case that is before the courts at the present time. I do not know what the decision of the courts will be. I should not like to express an opinion on it. It has gone before the courts through the instrumentality of the parties concerned. Let me say this to my hon. friend. You can easily make a gravy train-


Angus MacInnis: What does the minister mean by "gravy train"? What is a gravy train? Who is it made for?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not made for anybody.


Angus MacInnis: What is a. gravy train?


Humphrey Mitchell: A gravy train is a
favourite phrase that is used in labour organizations-


Angus MacInnis: Not in mine.


Humphrey Mitchell: -that the government is the instrument for one side or the other to embarrass the other side through the courts in every little dispute that takes place. My hon. friend must know that this is the end of the road. What happens when there is no responsibility? They say, let the Minister of Labour face up to it, whether it is a national dispute or a provincial dispute. The soundest approach is to have to get leave from the board to prosecute. You can have your own machinery cluttered up with prosecutions, instead of sitting down around a table and compromising on the dispute in question. I still hold that opinion. I hate very much to turn the labour department or this national labour board into a police department. They can easily go before the board as laid down in this legislation and ask for leave to prosecute. That is the soundest approach to the matter.


Angus MacInnis: The point is that they must go to the minister for leave to prosecute. The minister referred to every little organization that wanted to get on the gravy train. I do not know what he meant by that. He did not explain the phrase to me. I imagine it is something out of which somebody gets something, but they cannot, get it in any ca:?e until the minister indicates that there is a good reason for prosecution.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the hon. member missed my point.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What change do they want?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether I have made my point clear. I will leave the gravy train out of it.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes.
Government Annuities Act


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member from northern British Columbia should know something about gravy trains.


Gordon Graydon: Put it on the switch.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. Where there is a lack of responsibility on either side, difficulties arise. Often people come to my office, or to the offices of officers of my department, and I can see that they are in the mood to prosecute somebody. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, or even more than that, through the processes of conciliation they sit down one with another and make an agreement. Governments being what they are, and politicians being what they are, if you make the spending by governments for organizations, whether they be employees or employers, as easy as my hon. friend would have it I do not think this legislation would be worth the paper on which it is written.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think it is now worth the paper on which it is written.
Amendment (Mr. Gillis) negatived: yeas, 9; nays, 56.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 and 47 agreed to.
On section 48-Notice by mail.
William Henry Golding: There is a slight amendment to this section which was made in the committee. Instead of reading as it formerly did, "through His Majesty's mails," it now reads "by registered mail."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 49 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-Classes of employees and employers thereof and works, undertakings or businesses under part I.
William Henry Golding: The committee made an amendment to this section which reads as follows:
[DOT] : [DOT] ,any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada including, 'but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing . . .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 54 to 74 inclusive agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 4 stands.


Humphrey Mitchell: In connection with an amendment to clause 4, a suggestion has been
fMr. Mitchell.]
made. The legal officers are looking into the section and they have not completed their labour. We can agree that all the sections are carried with the exception of clause 4. I suggest that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again today if we can obtain the opinion of the legal officers; if not today, then some other day.
Progress reported.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL E. COTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 343, to amend the Government Annuities Act.
He said: In opening the discussion on the second reading of this bill, I think the house will expect me to give a summary of its amending provisions and the intentions which have governed the recommendations that such changes be implemented. Since its inception in 1908, the Government Annuities Act has not been substantially changed in many ways. The administration of the act was first given to the Department of Trade and Commerce, where it stayed until 1912, when it was transferred to the department of the Postmaster General. In 1922 it was given to the Department of Labour, where it still is. So far as the administrative structure of the act is concerned, there has not been anything done by way of amendment more than to change the minimum or maximum amount of annuity for which a purchaser was permitted to contract. This has been done from time to time.
I believe at this stage I should restrict my remarks as much as possible, and give a sort of perspective of the bill. Net receipts during the thirty-nine years from inception to March 31, 1948, total $462,814,944.90, over 50 per cent of which resulted from operations in the last five years. The rigidity of the present act has become more and more evident with the increasing volume of business. Family responsibilities and the financial status of many annuitants change over the years, and the present act provides little opportunity to alter original contracts to give effect to such changes. The main purpose of the bill is to provide more flexibility by permitting, within limits, the conversion and alteration of annuity contracts.
By reason of the arrangement of section 4 of the act, there is no authority for issuing or changing certain types of annuity contract. This lack of provision in the act defeats to a harmful extent the real objective of the act, namely, to fit each annuitant with the type

Industrial Relations
and, within statutory limits, the kind of annuity best suited to his needs and means and to keep him so fitted during the life of the contract. The proposed amendments to this section extend to purchasers the freedom of choice as to the type and terms of authorized annuity contracts which might be required to meet changing circumstances. Authority to make regulations for the conversion and alteration of annuity contracts which are authorized by the new section is provided under the appropriate section.
The amount of the minimum annuity which may be sold is increased from $10 a year to $60 a year. It has been found that annuities yielding less than $5 a month are of little value to the annuitant and do not warrant the cost or expense involved in the selling, accounting and servicing. The total amount that might be paid by way of annuity or annuities to any annuitant or to joint annuitants has been increased from $1,200 to $1,500.
There is no substantial change involved in the provisions concerning payments in the event of death, but the section has been redrafted for purposes of greater clarity and *certainty. In accordance with the authorized rates, when the holder of an immediate annuity dies no benefit is payable except to the extent of any guaranteed instalments of annuity, and immediate surrender of the purchase money is required. If the annuitant should die before having received even the first instalment of the annuity, the terms of the present act may be invoked to return the purchase money with interest to the heirs. This inconsistency in the benefit presumed in the calculation of rates and the provisions of the present act, has been removed by the amendments to this section. In addition, broader *options are provided to the purchaser as to the disposition of payments under this section in extending the privilege of naming beneficiaries and of commuting guaranteed payments.
The basis to be followed in establishing interest rates is set out and provision made for a review of interest rates and mortality tables at least once every five years and for the return of premium payments in prescribed *circumstances.
The section dealing with the accounts to be kept and the manner in which the liability for annuity contracts in force at the end of each fiscal year shall be calculated, has been redrafted for purposes of greater clarity and certainty. The wording has been discussed with and concurred in by representatives of the office of the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury.
I submit that for the time being what I have said should be sufficient to open a useful discussion on the principle of the bill. There may be other points which hon. members would wish to clear up and which could be discussed in the house. These latter remarks would be more in order, however, when we reach the committee stage, because they can be related to the different sections of the bill.
I submit that, under these circumstances, the amendments sought to the Government Annuities Act have become necessary. This is the first time in thirty-nine years that an attempt has been made to modernize the administrative structure of the act. In view of the tremendous increase in business which began five or six years ago, it has become necessary to have this matter properly attended to by the house in the manner set out in the bill.
On motion of Mr. Cote (Verdun) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 195, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes (as	amended)-Mr. Mitchell-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 4-Employer or employers' organization interference with trade union.
William Henry Golding: An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly, because I believe someone on the government side wishes to move a subamendment. Hon. members will understand that the amendment I have proposed seeks to achieve the same purpose as that sought by the bills I have introduced on several occasions, having to do with protecting the pension rights of railway and other workers. I withdrew my bill two weeks ago so that I might bring up the matter in this way and thus meet all the objections that have been made on the floor of this house.
One main objection to my Bill No. 24 of last year and my Bill No. 6 of this year was that if this kind of legislation was good it should apply, not just to railroad workers but ito all workers. I have met that objection by suggesting that this protection be provided in the labour code.
Another objection made on the floor of this house was that the wording of my bill might
Industrial Relations

have the effect of protecting the pension rights of those who took part in what is sometimes referred to as illegal strikes. By providing this protection through the medium of an amendment to this present bill, the benefits will be afforded only to those who meet the terms of Ithe bill now before us. I suggest that my amendment quite clearly provides this protection only to those who find themselves out on strike after having gone through all the machinery laid down by this federal labour code.
I feel that I have met all the objections; yet if this amendment or some form of it passes it will meet the wishes, not only of railway workers but of thousands of other workers across the country. It would prevent a recurrence of the injustice that occurred in 1919 when pension rights were lost by Canadian Pacific railway employees who were on strike in that year.
This amendment-I regret to say-does not have any retroactive effect. The rights of the men of 1919 is another matter which I shall continue to pursue. However I should like to say, on behalf of those men, that if this amendment or some form of it carries today, even though their case has not yet been rectified they will rejoice in the fact that there is now legislation to prevent it from ever happening again. I know that from what many of these men have said to me, numbers of whom have passed on during the five or six years I have been bringing these matters to the floor of this house.
I commend this strongly to hon. members of the committee on behalf of thousands of workers across this country. I hope that this amendment, either in its present form or in some alternative form which the minister may suggest, may be passed at this time.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The amendment that has been moved by the hon. member is to section 4, subsection 2(b). Personally I would have thought .that clause (b) as it now stands would answer the purposes and objects of the hon. gentleman. However, he has moved an amendment which perhaps can be accepted in principle. There are one or two objections I should like to make, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee by making them. I think, if the wording of the hon. gentleman's amendment could be changed somewhat it would meet any objections that I would have in so far as my responsibilities for the railroads are concerned. I have prepared a further amend-

ment which I hope will be acceptable to the hon. member and which reads:
That section 4, subsection 2(b) be further amended by changing the period after the word
'act" to a comma, and adding thereafter the following words:
"and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, no employer shall deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled by reason only of his ceasing to work after the commencement of this act as the result of a lockout or while taking part in a concerted stoppage of work due to a labour dispute where such lockout or stoppage of work has been enforced by the employer or called by the recognized representative of such employee, as the case may be, after all steps provided or contemplated by law have been taken through negotiation, collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration to settle such dispute or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act."


William Henry Golding: If this subamendment is satisfactory, will the hon. member be willing to withdraw his amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I understand the proposal made by the Minister of Transport, this wording he read will be passed as an addition to section 4, subsection 2(b). If that is the case, I am happy to accept it.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Chevrier) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the title.


Angus MacInnis: I have one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. Is there an action now pending in the courts to test the validity of P.C. 1003?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, before the Quebec courts.


Angus MacInnis: Is the government represented?
. Mr. MITCHELL: We have counsel there.


Angus MacInnis: This act will come into force on proclamation. Would it not be desirable to bring it into effect as early as possible?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is being considered. When the constitutionality of an act is being attacked I think it is the duty of the government to be represented by counsel.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I am glad to see that this bill has read ed the stage of adoption. As you know, Mr Chairman, ever since you

Government Annuities Act
and I came here about nineteen years ago, sixteen years of that time I was a member of the industrial relations committee, and I took part in all the discussions that occurred there during that time. A year or two ago, for reasons unknown to me, I was left off the committee, notwithstanding the fact that I have been a labour man nearly all my life and associated with the operations of labour and big business. Because I did not hear any of the discussions before the committee, I refrainrd from saying anything on the bill, but I should like to say a word or two at this time.
A few moments ago I voted against an amendment which would have reinserted subsection 8 of section 32 in the bill. That subsection had the effect of barring lawyers from appearing before conciliation boards. During my many years in business and my connection with controversies of one kind and another, I know that many lawyers who were honest in their convictions have rendered good service, both to the employees and to the employers. I have in mind several of these gentlemen, but in particular I am thinking of Mr. Bernard Rose, K.C.. of Montreal.
Since there was a possibility that lawyers would be barred from appearing before conciliation boards, I have received many letters of protest. For years it has been the job of Mr. Rose to appear before conciliation boards on behalf of labour, and for that reason I opposed the amendment which would have barred such lawyers from acting in that capacity. Mr. Bernard Rose had the respect of the labour unions and of businessmen. I am glad to see that such lawyers as he is and others like him will now be permitted to appear in the settling of disputes. I am sure the minister knows the man I refer to, and knows many others like him of great ability and honesty of purpose.
I have just a word or two further to say. I was in big business for many years and had much to do with labour and disputes between business and labour. I found that the large majority of labour leaders were honest, upright, devoted men, imbued with the spirit of doing the best they could for the men they represented, but wholly against a strike unless it became absolutely necessary. They have often told me, and it is true, that a strike does not pay either side. It does not pay the working man, because it means he is out of work and without his weekly pay envelope for as long as the strike lasts. It does not pay the employer, because his wheels are not turning and production is stopped. So I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of labour leaders and of business operators are happy to
avoid a strike and happy to see any dispute between management and labour settled by negotiation. That has been my experience. It is only the odd man in either camp who might want to have a row.
If this bill does what everybody hopes it will do, it will be a very good bill. It is along the lines I have advocated in this house for the past fifteen or sixteen years. There is no reason why the honest labour leader and the honest industrialist cannot sit down together with their feet under the same table and settle their disputes. I have seen it done many times. I have seen only one strike in the line industry in which I was engaged, comprising several plants, for many years, because the labour leaders there were sound, sensible, honest men, who wanted the best they could get for their men, naturally, but wanted, if at all possible, to avoid a strike. That is the type of man, both in labour and in management, that I have been dealing with all my labouring and business life. I have served in the labour ranks and paid my dues in a very large organization with which I was associated many years ago.
I am happy to see this bill pass and trust that it will realize the hopes of all of us.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT



PROVISIONS AS TO ISSUE, CONVERSION AND, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Verdun) for the second reading of Bill No. 343, to amend the Government Annuities Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have done a pretty fair day's work and perhaps Your Honour will call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, by an interests ing coincidence, it is exactly forty years ago tomorrow, June 18, 1908, that the Government Annuities Act was given second reading by this House of Commons. When one considers the individualistic ideas of that time, the act was indeed a forward step, and many Canadians have been grateful to the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for what they did at that time. I am afraid, however, that Canadians

Government Annuities Act

generally will not feel so grateful about the changes being made in that act by the present government forty years later.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote), in introducing the bill this afternoon, referred to some of the changes being made as administrative in character. He also said that in some cases the aim is to loosen up the rigidity of the act with respect to altering contracts, and I agree that those provisions are all to the good.
However, there are, in the amending act now before us, at least two provisions which I very much dislike. One of them is the provision that the rate of interest to be used in computing the rates for the purchase of annuities shall be tied to the rate of interest on government bonds, with certain qualifications which I need not go into at this time. That provision confirms the action taken by order in council just before April 19, which resulted in a considerable increase in the cost of annuities as from April 19 of this year. The other change which is provided for in this act and which I deplore is one that actually introduces an element of rigidity which was not there before.
I use that word, because the parliamentary assistant this afternoon boasted of the fact that in some respects the amendment was to get rid of some of the rigidities. I point out to him that this amending bill introduces an element of rigidity not there before, in that, from now on, government annuities will have to be taken out on the understanding that regular payments of the same amount must be made at specified intervals.
Previously it was possible to take out an annuity contract and make payments at any time in almost any amount. I think the minimum acceptable at one time was twenty-five cents. I have no doubt there have been some abuses of the wide latitude which was provided, but it seems to me that the government is going too far toward the other extreme in making contracts so rigid that people will be frightened from taking out government annuities. It will seem to many people another commitment they have to tie themselves to, which they might not be able to meet, and therefore there will be reluctance to take out annuities because of that feature.
I indicated at the outset that this legislation saw its birth in this house forty years ago tomorrow, and the parliamentary assistant has already given figures to indicate its popularity across the years, and in particular, according to the figures he gave this afternoon, its mounting popularity in the last five years or so.
As at March 31, 1948, 210,796 Canadians held annuity contracts. That number is not great

compared with the total population of Canada, but it is a substantial beginning, looking toward the goal which the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated last night, a contributory old age pension scheme that might enable Canadians to provide adequately for their own old age.
May I remind the house again that the preamble to the original act as passed back in 1908, being chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada for that year, in the reign of Edward VII, read:
Whereas it is in the public interest that habits of thrift be promoted and that the people of Canada be encouraged and aided thereto so that provision may be made for old age; and whereas it is expedient that further facilities be afforded for the attainment of the said objects; therefore His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows . . .
Then followed the terms of the act itself. This indicated that even in those days, which are looked upon as having been more individualistic than is the case today, there was recognition of the partnership that could be played by individuals and the community in providing for old age.
On the basis of that legislation, despite the fact that until recently it has been given little advertising or publicity, over 200,000 Canadians now hold contracts. This means that as at March 31, 1948, there were 210,796 Canadians who had the beginnings of a contributory old age pension plan. Of that total figure I have given, 118,733 held what are known as individual contracts, and the rest, 92,063, held certificates in group plans.
May I characterize those two groups of people in another way? What it means is that the 118,733 Canadians who, at March 31 of this year, held individual plans were participants in a two-way contributory old age pension plan. The individuals paid and the government paid a small amount. The others, 92,063, were participants in the really desirable kind of contributory old age pension plan, a three-way plan; the three contributors were the individuals themselves, their employers and the government.
The government's contribution in both cases, until April 19 of this year, consisted of the whole cost of administration of the plan, plus an element of subsidy which came into the picture by virtue of the fact that the rates on annuities were calculated on the basis of a rate of interest a little bit higher than the government would have to pay on the open market. But since April 19, that element of subsidy has in effect been removed; and that new policy is confirmed by the bill now before us. From now on, the rates which must be paid for annuities are based on an interest

Government Annuities Act
i ate which is tied to the going rate of interest on government bonds. In other words, the government is putting into this fund nothing more than what it would have to pay to borrow that money anyway. This means that from now on, when an individual takes out an individual contract, it is a one-way contributory old age pension plan instead of a two-way one. It means that, from now on, individuals who take out certificates in group plans become participants in only a two-way plan, the contributions being paid by the individuals and by their employers, but no longer by the government. It seems to me that this is a step in the wrong direction, and I find it hard to understand the Liberal government of 1948 going back on the good beginning made by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1908.
May I remind the house once again that this change in the basic interest rate that is used for computing the cost of annuities has had the effect of increasing the amount that people have to pay in order to buy them? The increases vary according to the type of plan, the age of the purchaser, and other factors; but in the main, if a person is sixty years of age or so, and is putting his savings into an immediate annuity as a lump sum, he will now have to pay about 15 per cent or 16 per cent more than he had to pay prior to April 19. On the other hand, if a person is twenty or twrenty-five years of age or so, and takes out an annuity contract for which he will make periodic payments with a view to the annuity maturing at age sixty or sixty-five, he will have to pay from 36 per cent to 44 per cent more than was the case prior to April 19. That shows up the way in which the element of subsidy has been withdrawn, and it points out the way in which the government's contribution in this contributory scheme has been stopped.
As I have already indicated, it seems to me that is a reversal of a good Liberal policy of 1908, and I am indeed sorry that the government has taken this step. I have expressed this view before on the floor of this house this year, and it was inevitable that a certain amount of correspondence should come to me about this matter. I have been interested in the cross-section of the community from which this correspondence has come. It has come from individuals of small means and from workers, as well as from companies and concerns, who feel that the basis of a good three-way contributory plan has been badly upset.
As I indicated previously, this has the effect of introducing discrimination as between various people. It just does not seem fair that some of us who may have taken out annuity
contracts prior to April 19 are able to buy our old age pension at a cheaper rate than is somebody else of the same age who takes out an annuity contract now. The same thing holds true with regard to employees working for one and the same firm. Employees in a particular firm who held their certificates prior to April 19 are buying their retirement at a cheaper rate than are those who have become members of the same company's group plan subsequently to April 19. I do not like it, and I am sure that the people of Canada feel the same way about it.
A good deal has been said, in defence of the government's action, about the need for keeping the fund actuarially sound. In reply to a question I asked on a former occasion, the Minister of Labour gave figures as to the amount of money that the government was having to put into this fund, not only to pay for the cost of administration but to make up the accruing deficit. The minister said something to the effect that common sense would dictate a change in policy in order to avoid these mounting deficits. I believe the figure-and I will give an outside one-ran to something like $1,500,000 altogether for administration and for making up the deficit for the last year for which the minister gave the figures.
To some people this seems to be a final argument, that we should not be spending money which one might call the meeting of a deficit. Actually it is a subsidy; and, as hon. members know, we in this house certainly subsidize a great many things. Some of us want to see subsidized some things that are not yet on the list-such as food and other necessities the prices of which have gone sky high. But surely this is one thing that is deserving of a subsidy from the public treasury, namely, the attempt of people to help to provide for their owm old age. I know the argument which is sometimes used is that it means that several million people must pay taxes in order to help a few hundred thousand achieve this purpose; but the result is that you make it possible for those few hundred thousand to keep from going on the other old age pension; that, will save money for those who pay taxes. You also get established the beginnings of something that could be enlarged to a universal scheme.
I suggest that the arguments about deficit financing do not hold at all. If we can afford, for example, to forgo $5,000,000 of federal revenue this year in order to make the change in the income tax law that the Minister of' Finance made a few weeks ago, then we can afford $1,000,000, $1,500,000 or $5,000,000 a year for a purpose of this kind, namely, to help
Government Annuities Act


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I should like to say a few words on these annuities. I might say that if you are twenty-five years of age and far-sighted enough to plan ahead to when you will be sixty-five and want to retire on $100 a month, it will cost you $186.12 a year instead of $129.12. or 44 per cent more to do so now with the dominion government annuities than before a recent order in council cut the interest rate from four to three per cent, If you are twenty, the new plan will cost you $151.44 a year instead of $101.28, or an increase of 49-5 per cent; if thirty-five, $295.08 instead of $218.64, or an increase of 35 per cent, and if forty, $385.08 instead of $294.48, or an increase of 30-8 per cent. These figures were listed recently by W. D. Welsford, manager of William M. Mercer Limited, independent pension consultants, to show how cutting the interest rate by one per cent boosted the new rates.
In relation to company retirement plans for their employees, the difference is even more startling. Under the new rates it will cost a

Government Annuities Act
firm 130 per cent more to finance the pension of a forty year old worker than under the old. A firm with five hundred workers, considering a retirement plan based on the annuities, will pay an additional 8150,000 for past employees' service just to get the scheme in operation. In ten years the one per cent interest cut will mean 8200,000 from this one company's treasury.
Setting back mortality tables by three years, in addition to the interest cut, is another blow at the annuities. Such a revision is not justified on the basis of a group plan. Even the insurance companies are not using as stiff a table as this, and they are making money.
Another factor that will affect the popularity of these annuities is that it will no longer be possible to pay odd amounts at odd times at the post office toward the annuity. Hitherto you could pay as little as twenty-five cents a week, or prepay as much as $1,000 if you had the ready cash. Now the annuities are on a firm contract basis, and special arrangements have to be made for prepayment, while arrears must be paid within reasonable limits, according to the government announcement.
However, there is nothing to indicate that people who bought their annuities before April 19 will have to change their method of payment. Keeping the two classes of customers apart may turn out to be an administrative problem of headache proportions. What if the dominion government bonds which now pay 2-05 per cent could not be cashed in at any time? They certainly would not be as popular. Where else can the government borrow money at three per cent, as they will be able to with the new annuities?
Another point is that if the government annuities are made less attractive, it will not mean that pension plans and individual annuities will be purchased from insurance companies instead. It will mean that they just will not be purchased, and the possibility of old age security w'ithin the framework of private enterprise will disappear.
Still another point is that if annuities remain attractive, Canada's expanding population and level of business activity would result in more money being collected by the government in premiums than would be paid out and that this could be an anti-inflationary measure.
Unless cash surrender values are offered, a lowering of the interest rate will mean relatively few government annuities sold. A larger part of corporation funds will be directed to plant investment and the payment of dividends and the important deflationary force will disappear.
An upward movement in interest rates has started which should increase the insurance companies' earnings beyond four per cent. If insurance company contracts did not have to bear such a high loading for commissions and expenses, it should be possible to make them quite competitive with government annuity contracts, particularly since the insurance company contracts offer cash values, and the government annuity contracts do not.
It has been suggested that the 81,200 a year limit should be raised to $2,000, because a couple can no longer retire comfortably on $1,200 a year.
Many people bought annuities by the small payment plan. Parents saved this way to educate their children to fit them for different walks of life. I think our government with the huge surplus on hand have forgotten that perhaps never in the history of Canada have our people found it as hard to make a living and raise and educate their children. It is difficult for most Canadian citizens to understand why the government should lower the interest rate on annuities, while at the same time the policy of the Bank of Canada has been changed so that interest yields on government and other bonds arc increased.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the change in the interest rate from four to three per cent will not defeat the purpose the framers of the original act had in mind, namely, to have as many as possible of the lower-paid classes take part in a. government scheme of this kind, because that will increase the cost to the annuitant.
I am aware that at page 59 of the report issued by the Department of Labour it is stated that about $977,089 had to be transferred from one account to another, evidently because reserves had run down. But the report does not state that this transfer of money occurred as a result of the lower rates before 1936, or how much of it occurred after the rates were raised in 1936, when they were advanced 15 per cent. I think that should have been stated, because perhaps before 1936 the rate was too low'. However, the advancing of the rate by 15 per cent in 1936 should have made the program self-sustaining. Those w'ho were interested before that time should not be penalized if the rates were not high enough.
I have the idea that the bill should not be proceeded with at this session. It should be deferred until next session, so that a special committee could be set up to which actuaries from outside as well as the department's
Government Annuities Act

actuaries and other experts could be summoned to give the committee facts and figures as to whether the rates should have been again raised.
The rates have already been raised several times; and since 1936, they had to be changed again in 1938. Some rates were up and some were down, which goes to show that whoever prepared those rates was not sure of what he was doing. Perhaps the present state of affairs is not satisfactory. Maybe the rates should be raised again; maybe they should be lowered again.
That is why I feel action should be deferred until next session, so that a parliamentary committee set up by the house would have power to call witnesses to advise as to whether the rate of interest should be lowered from four to three per cent, and whether all the other insurance rates should remain; as they are at the present time or not.
I have always supported government annuities and looked upon them as something for the benefit of the ordinary worker. The facts show that the subscriptions are to a greater extent .taken up by that earner class, because of those who arranged for payments up to $1,200 a year, about 90 per cent arranged amounts less than that. This shows that the investors were people of ordinary means. I shall not repeat what I said on the first occasion this matter was discussed, when I opposed the reduction from four to three per cent. In my judgment action should be deferred until another session to allow a proper investigation by a parliamentary committee.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, for the second time today I find myself opposed to the government on a matter of policy. At this time it is extremely unfortunate that the government has taken this opportunity to show its lack of co-operation with the employers of Canada in the attempts they have been making in increasing measure to provide security for their employees in their old age. I believe the average forward-thinking industrial concern in Canada has been greatly interested in the welfare of its employees who reach the age of retirement.
I know the minister himself is much concerned with the difficulty the older people are having in finding employment after they reach the age of forty-five. I notice that the C.C.F. party have taken occasion to castigate one of the larger lumber operators in British Columbia. But I would point out to the minister and also to the C.C.F. that this very concern paid a good deal over a million dollars into the government annuities fund this year, paying

up back pensions of its employees, thus allowing those employees to take part in the pension plan without any payments being made on their part, and also, providing this year's payments of employees' annuities.
At this particular time it might be wise to call to the attention of the government its niggardly treatment of civil servants. I do not wish to be unkind or unfair, because I think there has been too much said by hon. members opposite about judges' pensions and pensions of transport commissioners; but I do feel that in many departments of government the treatment has not been generous. For instance, I know of a lifeboat man who had worked with the Department of Transport for the last thirty-five years and who had never been given an opportunity by the government to contribute toward his security in old age. At a very late date, when this man was getting very old, he was allowed to contribute to the scheme. However, instead of the government doing as forward-looking private employers in Canada have done, namely, paying up the back pension, the government has asked these men to make their own back contributions out of their pensions. The lifeboat man I have in mind retired at the age of sixty-eight with a pension of $40 a month from which the government deducted $17 as back payments, leaving a net pension, after thirty-five years of service, of only $23 a month.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Sounds just like the Liberals.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not think the government can be proud of that record. It seems to me that this would be a wonderful opportunity for the government to encourage industrial employers throughout the country to co-operate with their employees, to take an interest in the welfare of the men who helped to contribute to their business, and who made their business successful.
I am sure every dollar we spend this way in connection with these pensions, or the subsidies we pay in these annuity plans, is worth $10 of the moneys we spend in the settlement of industrial disputes. Sometimes I think the higher strategy committee of the government wonders why they lose by-elections. I think today's vote on the labour bill must give them some kind of idea as to why they may not always expect the 100 per cent support of labour.
The very fact that the government has denied people living in the outlying districts the privilege of having some kind of refrigeration, the opportunity of importing even a small number of kerosene refrigerators from the United States, does not make friends for

Government Annuities Act
the government. In a case of this kind, ever}' time an employee comes in and finds that he is paying a higher rate for his pension than those who entered the scheme last year, they will be conscious of the fact that they are being discriminated against.
The government has not been wise in bringing in this legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are just not wise.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against the action taken on April 19 last by order in council in connection with this matter. I can find no better summary of the effect of the order in council than that which appeared in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. It summarizes my viewpoint on the question; indeed I believe it summarizes the viewpoint of many thousands of people throughout the country. I quote from it:
Because of this ill-considered decision sales of annuities to persons of modest means will decrease, the number of employees covered by pension plans will be lessened, the cost of such plans raised unnecessarily and the savings for old age discouraged.
Thi3 annuity plan represented an arrangement between the government of Canada and those who would enter into contracts believing that the provisions of the annuity plan would remain in effect. The changes that were made have never been justified by the minister. At the time of the change he did give an explanation which did not appeal to the reason of many members of this house and of many people in this country.
If there is one thing more than any other that will preserve private enterprise in this country it is the encouragement of industry to enter into retirement plans with a view to assuring a measure of security for their employees which too often in the past has been denied. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) has stated, many industries entered into this arrangement with a view to discharging their responsibilities to the end that private industry would not, at the expiry of the period of service on the part of their employees, place those employees out of work and a charge upon the country as a whole.
The annuity plan has been working out to the advantage of thousands and thousands of people who are under these employer-employee contracts. Without any warning, and indeed, without any justification, a decision was made which I do not believe represents the views of the minister and his department. We do not know why that change was made. We do not know who suggested it.
A commission was set up some years ago under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Ives,
a former chief justice of Alberta, to inquire into the taxation of annuities. It found that eighty-seven per cent of the recipients of annuities held contracts for less than $900 a year, and that three-quarters of the annuitants were receiving less than $600 a year. It is something that benefited men and women with low incomes; it was not taken out to any extent by those with large incomes. According to the findings of the commission only 131 annuitants, or less than one-half of one per cent, were drawing over $1,200 a year, to which figure the amount of individual annuities was restricted in 1931.
In my opinion the action taken by this government constitutes a backward and improper step. The situation was summarized by the financial editor of one of the great newspapers in this country, who said:
. . . the change will sound the deathknell for a number of industrial pension plans now in the process of being set up.	.
One of the arguments used over and over again against private enterprise is that employers in business fail to assure the measure of security that they ought to for their employees. Because of the rates that were available and because the contracts they entered into were with the government, many employers entered into such contracts believing that the government would continue similar provisions in all future contracts. Even yet the minister should give reconsideration to the decision made by the order in council of April 19. Some reforms and changes should be made in the provisions of annuities; but to interfere with the principles of contracts is a denial of principle which cannot be denied.
I realize that it is almost useless to protest against what has been done, but I want the house and the country to know that in my opinion the action taken by the government was unjustifiable and should not be accepted by parliament.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the second reading of this bill. The case against it was put most excellently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The purpose of the annuities act when it was put on the statute books forty years ago was to help people with small means to save for the time when they would no longer be able to earn. We should not overlook that purpose.
We are now paying old age pensions to many people who are over the age of seventy years, and there is a growing demand that we begin paying these pensions at the age of sixty-five years. According to the statement given the
Government Annuities Act

other evening by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), we know there are now 275,000 persons receiving old age pensions. According to the figures given tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, something over 210,000 are paying into the annuity plan.
Surely we should not place too much emphasis on the actuarial soundness of this scheme. The hon. member gave the deficit as being $1,500,000, including administration. If we take the number of persons paying into the scheme, this means about S7 a year per person. Surely it is worth $7 a year per person to this government to encourage people to pay into a plan of this kind, so that when they reach the age of sixty-five years, or whatever the retirement age is, they will have sufficient to look after themselves and not have to come to the state for old age pensions.
I think it would pay the government-by government I mean the people of this country, because, after all, it is the people who must pay the deficit-to make up this deficit. This government is contributing to a number of old age pensions, some in whole and some in part.
The contributions made by the government in 1946-47 to the civil service superannuation fund amounted to $3,160,000. Let it be clearly understood that I am not objecting to that; but consider the comparatively small number for whose benefit that was paid in comparison with the number of those who are trying to put something aside through the purchase of a government annuity in order that they may have some independence in their old age. It may be said these civil servants are working for the government and, because of that, they have a claim on the government for assistance in building up a superannuation fund. But I say they are no more working for the government than the great mass of the Canadian people who are working on our farms, in our factories, in our mines and in the mills, or wherever they may be, producing the wealth of this country. The minister is not in the house at the moment, but I suggest to his parliamentary assistant and to such members of the government as are now present that they reconsider this bill in all its implications and suspend discussion on it, so that further consideration may be given either to withdrawing it or to amending it drastically.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us decreases the rate of interest paid to annuitants and diminishes the benefits of an annuity bought under this government scheme. It is difficult to understand the policies of the present government in

these days. One might expect retreat from good social legislation by a reactionary government. One would expect such a step as this in days of decadence, but it is not the sort of thing one would expect from a Liberal government. Today the Canadian people realize that a government annuity within the reach of the average Canadian citizen is both good government and good business, and the people of Canada are expecting the government to move in that direction. Instead, we find that the government is placing these government annuities a little further beyond the reach of the average citizen. In other words, a government annuity costs more and the returns from it are less. It can mean only one thing. It means that fewer people will buy government annuities and get the benefit of an annuity in their old age from the Canadian government. If we could get twice or three times as many Canadians to subscribe to a government annuity fund and get its benefits, we would save at least that much in the amount we have to pay out in old age pensions.
It is good for the people of a country to feel that they are providing for themselves in their old age through a government annuity scheme. The tragedy of poverty overtaking people in their declining years is only too evident in Canada today. Instead of doing something to relieve that situation and making people happier and more contented, we find a Liberal government making these annuities less attractive; going in the wrong direction altogether by placing these annuities further out of the reach of the people of this country. I do not know why the government is retreating from this field. I do not know whether they favour private enterprise moving in to occupy it, but I know that some day the real cause will be exposed. We cannot do much more than protest against the step that is being taken here, and we shall continue to protest against it. I assure the government of this, that they are moving in the wrong direction.
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I am greatly surprised that the government should bring forwar d this measure to make it much more difficult than it has been for Canadian citizens to make some provision for their old age. I should think, with the social conscience which has developed in this country within the last fifteen or twenty years, that wherever there was some evidence of self-help on the part of our people, the government would certainly not discourage that tendency but would rather encourage it, even though it might have cost $1,500,060 each year, so that our Canadian people might by

Government Annuities Act
their own provision look forward to having some financial resources in their old age.
This bill not only reduces the interest rate from four to three per cent, but it makes the mortality table more severe, so that the cost goes up against the annuitant. Administrative costs, which in the case of all social measures such as the family allowance and so forth, have been borne by the government, will now be saddled upon those who are trying to help themselves in a very modest way by providing an income of $1,200 or less per annum for themselves; and the bill increases the maximum annuity by $300, making it $1,500 altogether.
What is the true rate of interest on money? This government, by its managed economy, by the operation of the Bank of Canada, has forced interest rates down, not to four per cent but to three per cent, and in recent years even less than that. We all remember when government bonds sold to yield five per cent; and I can recall Ontario bonds, when the credit of the province was as good as that of the dominion, selling to yield six per cent. Has the minister told us what the average rate of interest on Canadian bonds has been during the last twenty to thirty years? No, he has not. He would probably have to say it was in excess of four per cent, which up to the moment has been the prevailing rate on government annuities. But now, through the government's own manipulation of credit, having forced the rate of interest on bonds down to three per cent, it seeks to apply that rate against our citizens who are trying in a very modest way to provide some financial resources for their old age.
But in addition to having forced the interest rate down, what kind of dollars is this government giving to the people of Canada who, during the last twenty or thirty years, have been paying their hard-earned money into this government annuity scheme? Certainly they are not the same kind of dollars that were paid in. The government has benefited because, through the drop in the value of the dollar, the government, which got paid in three bushels of wheat or in three hours of work, is now paying it back at the rate of two bushels of wheat or two hours of work. Where is the fair play in that? Where is the even break which the government should give to its own citizens who have the foresight to try to look after themselves. The government has gained a tremendous amount in actual dollars under this annuity scheme. The so-called monetary loss of SI.500.000 a year does not begin to offet the actual gain which the government has made because of the changed value of the dollar. You pay in when
the dollar is a hard dollar, and the government pays out when the dollar is worth half as much.
I should also like to point out that under our old age pension scheme such as it is today we have the means test, which is an abomination and which accounted for the loss of seats to a certain political group in the province of Ontario recently as much as any other one thing did. Certainly in my own riding, provincially speaking, it was without question one of the greatest factors, and no differentiation was made between the dominion government and the provincial government in regard to the contributions or the administration of old age pensions. The means test, I repeat,, is an abomination.
I cannot understand for a moment why a young person starting out in work, who never expects^ to get a very great deal, because of his position or his contribution to our society, should save, since he is little better off at the end than if he had spent all the money himself. The old age pension comes along, and if the pensioner has some capital that he has saved he will not, because of this means test, get the benefit of his own savings.
To come to annuities in relation to old age pensions, as long as this system obtains, if a person has any income he or she does not get the old age pension, and that is another channel through which the dominion government has to date, although I hope it will not benefit much longer, saved for itself a great deal of money.
It would be interesting to know on whose advice the government has seen fit to introduce _ this measure. Is it on the advice of certain interested parties in this country, or is it on the advice of its own financial advisers? I think it would be of extreme interest to the house, if the minister, or the parliamentary assistant in charge of the bill, would indicate to us just where the suggestion came from.
There are objections on the part of some institutions which sell annuities that it has been unfair to them for the government to quote lower rates, but I believe the social significance of government annuities far outweighs any objections which they might have.
It has also been pointed out that well-to-do people have taken advantage of the government annuities system whereby they can get four per cent interest on their savings rather than three per cent if they invested those savings directly in government bonds. But there are comparatively few people in that class who take advantage of it; and, as has been pointed
Government Annuities Act

out by one of my colleagues, the average annuity under the government scheme is for less than $600.
The bearing of this change upon the employee retirement plans will be of great significance. It has been an inducement for corporations to inaugurate retirement plans, using dominion government annuities as the basis, because there was at least some semblance of a fair return on contributions by employer and by employee when four per cent was allowed on them. It might be said that everyone does not share in these government annuities, and that is so. They are not universal, but they are open to all. Yet the government sees fit to discourage those who are willing to exercise some measure of self-help.
I cannot refrain at this moment from saying a word about the government's attitude, now as in past years, towards government annuities. It is only a matter of four or five years since the Liberal government caused Canada to break its word for, I believe, the first time on record, when, after having sold these annuities on the basis of a limitation of $1,200 per annum, which would be tax free, the government changed the method of taxation and subjected them to income tax. Subsequently seeing the wrongfulness of that action, they retraced their steps to some extent, and a new provision was passed whereby only the income-earning element and not the capital of the annuity was taxed. I think it is now on a fair basis; nevertheless the government has not wiped off the stain left on its escutcheon when it committed a breach of faith and broke the word of the dominion with people who had purchased the annuities.
May I also point out that when it is said that these annuities under the present four per cent rate are costing the taxpayer generally a certain amount of money, even though it is small, there are many things under our system as it obtains today wherein there is not complete fairness or equity. I shall mention the retirement plans which exist under many corporations and institutions, and even under the government itself.
There the worker is allowed to deduct, let us say four or five per cent of his wages and have the amount paid into the retirement plan before taxation, and in practically every case the corporation or employer will contribute a similar amount which does not enter into his taxation bracket. Ultimately, when the employee benefits, when he is retired, the amount he gets is taxed, but it is obvious to all that at that time the former employee's income bracket is such that he is subject to little or no tax. Yet the great bulk of our

citizens are not fortuniate enough to belong to institutions, whether the government or large corporations, that can afford to put into operation these retirement plans, so that they cannot save before taxation as can hundreds of thousands of our citizens who do come under these retirement plans which get the authorization of the Minister of Finance.
So there we have one continuing form of discrimination, if the government wishes tu rely on discrimination as the basis for making this change in government annuities. I believe, and certainly the Progressive Conservative party believes, that we should make adequate provision for the old age of our people, and we believe that it should be made under a contributory old age pension scheme.
When a young man or a young woman starts working, he or she should start contributions to a plan; the employer should make a contribution, and the state should make a contribution, so that when that young man or young woman reaches the age of retirement, he or she can retire with a competence which is at least decent and not insufficient to keep body and soul together.
I believe it is an essential lack of sincerity in any party which believes in a contributory old age pension plan if it feels that it can support this bill, which makes it more difficult for our people to provide a reasonable measure of social security for themselves. Certainly I for one believe, in fact I not only believe but I think I may say I know, that with the resources and the prosperity of the country we must put a floor of social security under our people.
This government, however, in introducing this change in the annuities act, is making it more difficult for the individual to put a floor under himself. So that the government is not living up to what might be considered its declared principles, and certainly the Progressive Conservative party believes in a contributory old age pension scheme in which there will be a contribution by the state. The amount that is now given by the government under the dominion annuities scheme is a very small contribution. We must have a floor of social security under our people, and we must keep the gates of opportunity open, so that above that floor there will not be a limit which will discourage the best efforts oi our people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Adjourn it for six months.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adj ourned.

Supply-Trade and Commerce

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
440. Departmental administration, $272,600.
John Horne Blackmore: Before this item carries, I should like to make a few observations. Having gone over what the minister has said with respect to his general policy-


William Henry Golding: Order. I must ask bon. members to moderate their voices. It is difficult to hear the hon. member who is speaking.


John Horne Blackmore: Having gone over with some care what the minister has said with respect to his general policy, I am happy to be able to express approval of his general outlook, attitude and aim as he has expressed it. He realizes that one of the serious problems confronting the country at the present time is the shortage of United States dollars; and he is undoubtedly seeking to organize the economy of Canada in such a way as to safeguard her against too serious difficulties arising out of that condition. But I believe the minister will have to adopt measures, or at least that he will have to cause the government to adopt measures which are not implied in anything which he has said up to the present time.
I should like to talk for a short time about this United States dollar shortage. It seems to me that not enough attention is being given to it in a general way. The United States dollar shortage is not something new. It is not a postwar phenomenon. It is not a temporary or passing ailment which the world *can sleep off, work off, outgrow or, by natural means, recover from. The United States dollar shortage is rather a malignant malady, like pernicious anaemia, diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis, developing from deep-seated, fundamental, organic causes. If we are to cope successfully with this United States dollar shortage we must seek out those causes and remove, cure or counteract them.
When did the shortage of United States dollars become a reality? I find the general impression to be that the United States dollar shortage is something resulting from the recently finished war. But such is not the case. The United States dollar shortage began to develop right after 1919 when the United States became a creditor nation with high tariff protection. It became pronounced by 1926 and continued so through 1929.
I think a word or two of comment is desirable at this point. Great Britain was a creditor nation for a number of years, but you never
heard of a shortage of British pounds. Why was it that all through the one hundred years preceding world war I you never heard of a shortage of British pounds, while immediately the United States becomes a creditor nation you begin to hear about a shortage of United States dollars? Why was that? The fundamental reason was that when Britain was a creditor nation she always accepted goods from abroad in payment for her own goods. But when the United States became a creditor nation she refused to accept goods from abroad in payment for the goods she sold. This is one of the fundamental facts that it is necessary to keep in mind in order to comprehend the general situation in which we find ourselves.
I would say that the shortage of United States dollars developed immediately after 1919, just as soon as the United States became a creditor nation. From 1919 through 1929 the United States provided by loan some $7,500 million of new capital to other countries, more than the total of similar issues floated in the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands and all other capital-lending countries combined. In the nineteen-thirties such loans came to a complete standstill, while a heavy net inflow of capital came into the United States from other countries. Hon. members will find this matter scientifically, interestingly and authentically discussed on page 31 of "The United States in World Economy," a book in the library of parliament. Again, more than $900 million a year had to be paid to the United States by other nations as fixed debt service obligations of those nations to the United States resulting from world war I and from United States foreign investments or loans abroad. Hon. members will find this also discussed in "The United States in World Economy" at page 31.
United States tourists spent abroad more than $6 billion between 1918 and 1939, and only slightly below $500 million in 1929. This is also well discussed in "The United States in World Economy" at page 75. But these tourists' expenditures almost completely ceased after 1929. The reason why it is wise to discuss the matters which I am now discussing is that we are likely to see a repetition of these things which occurred in the United States between world war I and world war II. If we are to have ourselves strong enough and well enough cushioned to resist successfully the impact of untoward conditions in the United States we shall have to govern ourselves with extreme wisdom and vision.
How serious is this United States situation at the present time? The United States normally sells the world $12 billion worth of goods more than she buys from the world a year.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

government. Empire trade commenced its upward movement immediately after the Ottawa agreements in 1932, and world trade followed that trend in 1934, just two years later. If we take an index of 116 as indicating the volume of total British exports to all countries in 1930, the figures for the following years are as follows:
1931
1933
1935
1937
88
90|
1004
1X14
If we think in terms of a shortage of British pounds as we do a shortage of United States dollars we shall draw this conclusion, that the British would not have been able to export those goods to other countries, unless those countries were able in return to export goods to Britain to get British pounds.
May I repeat, that the solution lies along the line of imperial preferences and the sterling system of interstate finance for British commonwealth and empire countries. Another development is a modification of the sterling system, which I believe is the one best adapted to save the situation for the world.
In respect, of an international distribution of goods, the proposal has been made that the sterling system of international state finance be modified and extended into something like the system of contra account which is suggested by the London chamber of commerce in its report of September 30, 1947. What does this contra account mean? It practically means this in a general way: If the United States were selling a vast amount of goods to the world, as she is, she would say to the nations of the world: We will let you have $12,000,000 more of goods than you can let us have, and we will allow you credit for these goods as long as you are unable to produce and repay us with goods, and then, just as soon as you have goods to send back to us in return, we will accept them. That is to say, we are selling you the goods on a lend-lease basis of credit, and we shall expect back from the nations of the world such goods as they are able to supply us with. That would be, in a way a system of contra account. This method or some modification of it we shall have to adopt if we1 are to get ourselves out of the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves.


William Henry Golding: I would
remind the hon. member that his time is exhausted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go ahead.


John Horne Blackmore: I have practically
finished. Along with this, there should be economic self-sufficiency for Canada just as far as possible and as rapidly as possible. The minister is aiming at that very thing. We should aim to produce our own needs and to produce surpluses of many kinds for export on a lend-lease or mutual aid basis where necessary, very much like the contra account. Let us take goods in return if we can get them but if we cannot get them, let the nations have our goods on credit, so that they can be using -them and we can go on producing.
I could read a good many extracts to the committee. I have extracts from the New Zealand article to which I have referred, and a number of extracts from what I find to be a very fine issue of the Empire Industries Association and British Empire League, its April letter, bulletin 85. There are many excellent things in this bulletin and also in the May issue, bulletin 86, which I had hoped to read to the committee, but I shall not have time tonight.
In approaching the close of my remarks, it is well for us to bear this in mind, that the empire has all we need. Hon. members will be interested in hearing this quotation from Joseph Chamberlain. I had never heard it until I saw it recently:
There is no article of your food, there is no raw material of your trade, there is no necessity of your lives, no luxury of your existence which cannot be produced somewhere or other in the British empire, if the British empire holds together, and if we who have inherited it are worthy of our opportunities.
That is a most comforting statement. Canada has rich resources; it has varied resources; it has complementary resources. Hon. members will be interested in a quotation from the Royal Bank of Canada's monthly letter for June, bearing on this very subject. It says-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We all read that.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I will not take time to read it.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member's time is exhausted.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This is possibly one of the most important departments of the government. I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and I cannot help but feel that experience is indeed a great teacher. One of the problems we are suffering from today is an over-expansion of credit and currency, and I often wonder, as I listen to my hon. friend and his colleagues, just how they can

Supply-Trade and Commerce
reconcile their position today with their professed desire in the past to pay out dividends to the citizens of Alberta on a basis of S25 a month. If such a policy were in force today it could but increase the pressure against prices.
As a student of monetary reform and as one who believes that there is much room for improvement in our present monetary system, I have always held to the view that only a dollar earned is a dollar that has any value. You cannot get something for nothing. But it seems to me that the system advocated by my hon. friend and his colleagues is based on providing something for nothing.


John Horne Blackmore: Would my hon. friend permit a question?	.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: So long as you do not attempt to continue your speech.


John Horne Blackmore: It is just a question. Will my hon. friend devote his attention to the subject I discussed tonight. I did not mention money or dividends at all. If he wants to discuss monetary reform I shall be glad to discuss it with him, but he had better come well prepared. I was discussing tonight the world problem of distribution.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that I hold my hon. friend in the very highest regard. We differ in our opinions, and I was simply reminding him of one of the weaknesses of their program. I like people with ideas; I think they did have an idea which they tried to sell and certainly, in days gone by, in the hungry thirties a shot in the arm would have been good for this nation. I am concerned, however, about the immediate present, and I feel that we are too closely tied with the United States. As a matter of fact, there is great danger of our becoming an economic adjunct of that great republic. They are admirable as friends, but the Americans are pretty hard, cold-blooded dealers. They are two-fisted in their approach to commercial problems, and I regret to find that our whole future is more or less predicated upon the success of the Marshall plan or some plan that is evolved in the United States.
I suggest that, with Canada's great resources, we should stand on our own feet and plan accordingly. We have every reason to determine our own future course, and it would be well to strengthen our position in relation to the British preferential pacts within the sterling bloc. It is perhaps unfortuate that we are one of those countries in the dollar bloc, so closely related to the dollar countries. History reveals that, in the past, three-fifths of the world's commerce and trade took place within the sterling bloc; these two great blocs
are now pitted against each other, and we find ourselves in the dollar block.
Is it not most unfortunate that when we were in such a really enviable position we cast it away? It is not long since that Canada had a 90-cent dollar. Bretton Woods had been presented to the house, together with the terms of the international bank. We knew then that we were required to value our currency at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time we entered Bretton Woods. We could not depreciate our currency more than ten per cent without the consent >of that international organization, and yet, on the very eve of our entry into Bretton Woods, this government found it convenient, for reasons that I shall never understand, to bring our dollar up to parity with that of the United States. They robbed us of the most enviable position we shall ever have enjoyed in the realm of trade and commerce, because, as long as the United States dollar was accepted as the standard of exchange, we had access to the markets of the world.
Latin America lay open to our enterprise, open to our commerce and our trade, and likewise the countries of Europe enjoying a ten per cent advantage in the Canadian market. We were bound to reach those centres where our goods could be marketed and sold, which are at present denied to us because we have put an artificial prop under our Canadian dollar.
I say, Mr. Chairman, and I think I can discuss the question with some degree of authority, that the moment you put an artificial prop under the dollar, you interfere with the very lifeblood of a nation's trade and commerce. It naturally follows that the dollar should have been allowed to seek its own level in the world's markets, which, of course, there has been some effort to regulate and control. I am not denying that there should be some regulation, but we enjoyed a preferred position as our goods flowed over our borders into distant parts of the world where they were required and desired; and if our dollar had been allowed to seek its own level, by and by, of its own volition, it would have levelled itself with the United States dollar.
But we sought to place a handicap on the Canadian trader and producer, in spite of the fact that our production during the war was sufficient to stagger the human imagination. Indeed, the productive capacity of Canada is unlimited, and when I read in the press items advertising "Canada unlimited" I subscribe entirely to the theory. But we sought to place a handicap on our traders by saying to them, "You must meet the competition of one of the greatest producing nations in the world,
Supply-Trade and, Commerce

the United States, that have not only the productive capacity but the wealth of resources to stimulate that production and maintain their standard of living at a level comparable with Canada's". I am not one of those who say our standard of living is lower than theirs.
Canada, nevertheless, is going to pay a great price, because not only are we losing the present market but we are losing the potential market of the future. Had Canada's goods been flowing into Latin American countries and into other parts of the world we would have established a name for this dominion. The label "Canada" would have been known far and wide and people would have sought to place return orders. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is seeking to stimulate trade, and through his own good offices and the offices of those associated with him, he arranged the world trade conference, or show or exhibition in Toronto.
This government has always professed a belief in greater freedom of trade and exchange. I listened at home to the admirable words of the Prime Minister speaking from Europe when he announced the introduction of the Geneva trade pacts, and that was indeed a step in the direction of greater and freer world trade. But the radio suddenly switched from one program to the other, and the Minister of Finance made his announcement setting up artificial barriers in our own country and placing the obstacle of a 25 per cent excise tax in the way of the production of goods in this dominion.
The government tried to prove to the outside world that our dollar is as good as the United States dollar. We do not wish to be proud of these things, because if your dollar depreciates you have a trading advantage. I would point out, however, that the suggestion that our dollar was worth a dollar in the United States was after all only a joke, because it has been discounted right along, as high as from ten to fifteen per cent even in the border city of Buffalo; and while they endeavoured to prove that our dollar was worth a dollar in the United States they said to the Canadian people that it was worth only seventy-five cents at home, because they put a 25 per cent excise tax upon it.
I am one of those who had much to do with war savings certificates, and I am proud of my contribution in the way of encouraging our people to invest in them. The little $4 certificate was redeemable in seven and a half years at So. It was said to be the only government bond in the world which bore interest at 3J per cent, compounded semi-annually. In other words, in seven and a half years it returned $5 for $4 invested. There was also

a limit on the amount that one could invest- $480 a year or $40 a month-but at the end of seven and a half years one received back 850 a month.
There are some things I have to answer for myself, not because I have been a follower of the administration, but rather because I believed in their sincerity at the time; but now we find that, while these people are having $5 returned to them for $4 they invested, there is an excise tax of 25 per cent imposed upon their savings, and the dollar is worth only sixty-five cents.
I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a great deal of influence with the government-he has managed most of the departments-and my plea is that we be allowed to have an honest dollar. Let us do something to stimulate the productive capacity of the country. Let us remove this doubt and confusion. Today we find our gold mines languishing; and many of our natural resources which could be more properly developed are being neglected, all because of government regulation, bureaucratic control, an army of civil servants going across the land to determine whether a gold producing property is entitled to a bonus. Everything is done to hamper trade rather than to stimulate it.
The taxpayers of Canada are paying a terrific price. We know now there was no thought on the part of this government to reduce taxation, which would have lent the greatest stimulus to production that could possibly have been given to the Canadian people. With the huge surplus of upwards of $700 million, the government failed to bring any relief to the over-burdened taxpayers of Canada, but rather was satisfied to see them remain under the handicap which is of the governments' own making. I say that with every degree of sincerity, advisedly and wholeheartedly, because I am firmly of the opinion that the more you interfere with natural laws, the more difficult will it be to govern.
I say this to the government. If you want to join with my hon. friends on my left and drive this country into a state of socialism where there will be controls and greater controls, then you are in a fair way to bring about that very result. But if you want to encourage and develop the greatest degree of enterprise, enthusiasm, ambition, loyalty and determination in order to see this country through to its greatest destiny, you will encourage private enterprise to play its full part in the onward march of civilization. Not only do there lie before us green fields which look good a long way off; but we have back of us the resources and the productive capacity as well as the enthusiasm, initiative and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ambition of the greatest people in the world to carry us forward. My plea to the government tonight is to cut these bonds that are strangling trade and commerce. Give Canada a chance. Let us indeed join with the British commonwealth. Let us determine, as we did in those dark days of the war, that we will stand by Britain and see her through; that we will not become an adjunct of the United States of America, either politically or economically ; and that we will stand on our own and develop our own resources to our greatest capacity.
The CHAIRMAN; Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. the item does not carry. I wish to ask some questions of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At your service.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not hear what the minister said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said, at your service.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When these estimates were up, I think a week ago tonight, the minister gave me the detailed position of the trade situation vis-a-vis the United States. I then asked him if he would give us a picture of the foreign trade situation in other countries. I have some questions I wish to ask him with regard to certain details of the excise tax, but I would ask him first to give us a picture of the over-all trade position. I suggest to him that in doing that he might indicate to us to what extent our foreign trade, at some distance in the future, will be governed by contract, so that we can count on it; and to the extent that it is not so governed, will he give us his estimate of the trade situation, just in broad terms as h.e sees it in other countries, so that we can form an over-all picture of our complete situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can say that by and large the trade position of Canada is distinctly promising and rather better than we anticipated it would be at this time. At the last discussion of the estimates I gave the export and import figures with the United States and with Great Britain for the first four months of the year. I can say that for the fifth month, namely May-the figures for which were just received today-the preliminary figures are distinctly better than those in any month to date. This shows that we are making progress toward a desirable .position.
One interesting factor is this. Of course the position of Canada depends greatly on its total trade. We anticipated an export surplus for the year of $150 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is, we anticipated net exports over imports of $150 million. For the first five months of the year we have achieved our total objective in that direction. In other words, our exports already exceed our imports by $150 million in round figures. The actual figure is $145 million.


Howard Charles Green: That is for all countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For all countries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister give us the broad details of that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I have the figures here for the United States and the United Kingdom. For the first five months of the year, imports from all countries-and all these figures exclude gold of which we are not an importer-were $1,037,200,000. The net domestic exports to all countries are $1,182,900,000. That leaves a balance in our favour, for the first five months, of S145,700,000. Our trade with England for the first five months of the year was as follows: imports, $113 million; exports $305-4 million, leaving a favourable balance of $192-8 million. Our trade with the United States: imports for the first five months, $730 million; exports for the first five months, $545 million. We have an unfavourable balance there of $185-2 million. However, the May figures are the best to date and we believe that-


Howard Charles Green: May we have them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The May figures?	[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May imports from all countries were $225-2 million; and exports to all countries were $287-5 million, leaving a favourable balance of $62-3 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the minister the figures for May of last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is for May of this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister happen to have the figures for May of last year, so that we may make a comparison?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. In May of last year we imported 240-3 million and exported $267-8 million.


Howard Charles Green: What is the difference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a favourable balance of $27-5 million. With England we had imports of $15,200,000 and exports of $90,500,000.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

There we had a favourable balance of $75300,000, but I might point out that in May of last year we were shipping to England against the loan, and those exports were represented largely by long-term credits; whereas this year they are represented by cash. In May of 1947 our imports from the United States amounted to $184,700,000; our exports amounted to $79,800,000. We had an unfavourable trade balance of $105 million. Therefore we cut the unfavourable balance practically into four parts.


Howard Charles Green: What is the figure for the United States in May of 1948?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave that a while ago. We had an unfavourable balance of $29,300,000 for the month of May.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give us the figures for South America?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am so'rry to say I have not the figures for South America. The United States and the United Kingdom are the two largest trading countries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister said we were getting cash from Britain as distinct from a year ago. Does he mean dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For everything we send there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dollars or goods, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: United States dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, dollars, Canadian or United States. We get Canadian dollars to the extent that they have Canadian dollars, and for the rest we have to get United States dollars. Does it make any difference?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because we can use them in trading in dollar countries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But they are not dollars that we can use in paying the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, but we have use for dollars other than to pay the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the minister will agree that it is important, in respect of our relationship with the United States, to know how many United States dollars we get in selling there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They get Canadian dollars in selling to us goods or selling us gold, and either goods or gold is the equivalent of United States dollars.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask the minister some questions about the 25 per cent excise tax. First of all, I want to know whether any articles have been taken off the list, pursuant to the authority reserved since the bill became law, which I think was last February.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are getting into another department of the government. This department does not apply the excise taxes, administer them or take them in. I do not recall any that have been taken off, but there may have been some. I would not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to press a question which should be directed elsewhere; but I suggest that to some extent, at any rate, these excise taxes affect trade and commerce, because the 25 per cent tax was introduced as a measure to affect United States exchange. That was one of the reasons given. Perhaps I can get that answer elsewhere. First of all, what amounts have been received under it? Can the minister estimate to what extent it has been effective in the way of excluding United States goods? Is that a question which can be answered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I have not any knowledge of how much is collected. We have nothing to do with taxes. It is our duty to stimulate trade. I can give rough figures, but the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue would be the minister to answer that question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will leave it at that. I have one other question, following what the minister gave us the other night. He gave us a certain interesting general statement as regards new and increased types of exports to the United States. Will he give us one or two typical figures to show the extent of the development which he described.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think any figure I could give would be misleading. The over-all figures are the most illuminating. The fact is that we have greatly stepped up exports to the United States, and we have reduced our imports from that country. The result is that, counting gold, we are close to balance.


Howard Charles Green: Last November when the Prime Minister spoke from London he

Supply-Trade and Commerce
announced that Canada had taken the position with Great Britain that our trade agreement with that country must be put on a voluntary basis. In other words, it was no longer a binding agreement, but merely a voluntary arrangement which could be altered or cancelled at will by either party. As the minister will remember, originally there was a resolution on the order paper concerning the Geneva treaties, which included the approval of the letter written by Canada to Great Britain setting out that change in the preference. The approval of the letter has now been separated into another resolution, and that resolution has not yet been discussed in the house. Can the minister tell us whether there has been any change in that arrangement, or whether the preference with Great Britain still remains on a purely voluntary basis, which can be cancelled or varied at will?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again my hon. friend is in the field of the Minister of Finance. As I have said, we do not make the laws; we simply have to do with trade.


Howard Charles Green: This is a trade agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certain small variations were made in the agreements, one or two at the request of Britain to allow her to make arrangements under the Geneva agreements which were favourable to Britain, and one or two on our part to allow us to do the same thing. No important changes have been made in the British preferences.


Howard Charles Green: The minister means by the Geneva treaties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly, yes.


Howard Charles Green: They gave away the preference on apples.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so, but Britain is not buying apples.


Howard Charles Green: Not at the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How can the British preference affect a thing that is not being bought, or will not be? Britain is today self-supporting in apples.


Howard Charles Green: She is not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been over there and examined the situation. I think I know more about it than my hon. friend does.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is wrong. That is contrary to the information which was given in the banking and commerce committee. If the minister will check up he will find he is wrong. Britain is not self-supporting in apples.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where are they buying them at the moment?


Howard Charles Green: From Australia. They are buying huge quantities, far more than they ever bought from Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member must
realize the fact that anything that can be bought in sterling will be bought in sterling.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should know better than to say that Britain is now selfsufficient in apples. I am sure his officials in front of him will confirm my statement that he is wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The last time I was in Britain apples could be bought freely in the shops. They were one of the few things that could be bought, and they were British apples.


Howard Charles Green: That is very far from making Britain self-sufficient in apples.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know. The point is this, regardless of any trade agreement, we cannot even give apples to Britain now, because they will not accept them as gifts. My hon. friend knows that. Why worry about the British preference on apples when he knows very well that the preferences have nothing to do with the trading position of apples so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: That is a purely temporary position.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well-


Howard Charles Green: The time will come when there vrill be a market for apples in Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This was all fought out in Yale and neither you nor I won.


Howard Charles Green: In the meantime our preference has been given away. Our lumber preference has been cut in half. The preference on canned salmon has been cut in half. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver North will bear me out when I say this is of great importance to British Columbia. The point I am making is this. I wish to know whether the position is that the preference, so far as Canada and Britain are concerned, is on a purely voluntary basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: What about Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? The Prime Minister intimated, or perhaps it was in the press release which was issued at the time of the announcement of the Geneva treaties, that the agreements with the other nations of the commonwealth were also to be put on a voluntary basis, so that they could be cancelled or varied at will. Has that been done? Has there been any exchange of letters between Canada and these other nations, or do the agreements still remain binding agreements?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has absolutely nothing to do with the item. The Department of Trade and Commerce does not make international agreements. I could give the hon. member my best recollection of the thing, but it would mean very little. When we are debating the subject of these empire agreements, as we shall some day, we shall have the experts here and we shall give the accurate facts. But the hon. member is talking about matters which do not fall within the ambit of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that the minister is wrong again. These are trade agreements. He is Minister of Trade and Commerce. If he will take the trouble to ask his deputy minister who is sitting in front of him he will find out the answers to my questions, because certainly they are questions which should be answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and by no other minister. I am entitled to answers to those questions, namely, as to what has happened with regard to preferences between Canada and nations of the commonwealth, other than Great Britain. He has already given an answer about Great Britain. I want the answer with regard to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know the answer, and my deputy says he does not know the answer. I refer the hon. member to the tariff board or the Minister of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: That is not good enough. Here is a responsible minister of the crown in charge of these trade agreements, and-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You told them all about this in Yale. Why do you not give me the answers?


Howard Charles Green: Why talk that way? That is no answer at all.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The same answer as you got.


Howard Charles Green: We are entitled to know in this House of Commons from the Minister of Trade and Commerce what the position is with regard to the preference between Canada and the nations of the commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom. If the minister cannot give ui! that information tonight, then I sug-gnel thal the item be allowed to stand until he can get if. Does the minister refuse to get the information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Refuse to get it?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not in my department.


Howard Charles Green: Well, where can you get it, then?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Get it from the tariff board or the Minister of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: That shows once more the minister's utter failure to appreciate the type of parliament by which this country is supposed to be governed. Here he is, taking a stand in a Canadian parliament, that if information is wanted with regard to a trade agreement parliament must go and ask the tariff board. That shows his utter contempt for our parliamentary system. If the rest of the members are satisfied with it, I certainly am not. It is a strange position indeed at which we have arrived when a minister of the crown, the one who has the responsibility at this time for most of the business being done by the government, can take that stand in the house, and just say, "Oh, well, it is not up to me to give the information. You just run along and get it from the tariff board, or from somebody else". I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that parliamentary government has reached a sorry stage in Canada when that is the type of answer given by a minister of the crown.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I should like to ask the
minister a question, in a kindly way. I have been away from the house for some time, and perhaps I am not in touch with all that has taken place. The day before leaving, I mentioned the matter of fish livers going across to the United States, wdiere there used to be an embargo. The people out west who process by far the greater portion of these fish livers- I refer to the co-operative-are still interested in the matter. I am sure this comes under the minister's jurisdiction, because it was through his department that the embargo was lifted. Has there been any change in policy, or does the minister contemplate any change? There is still a ten per cent duty on processed oils going into the United States. The government would not be embarrassing itself under the Geneva trade agreements by its commitments respecting oils from the Pacific coast. I do not refer to the east coast, because that is a different set of conditions altogether. That was explained, to me.
There is a ten per cent tariff on processed oils, and I want to know if the government intends to reimpose the embargo to protect the industry which has been built up on the Pacific coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here again the Department of
Trade and Commerce acts on the advice of the Minister of Fisheries. It is all very well to put embargoes on to prevent trade from going across the line, except in finished form. That is a very fine protectionist theory; but it is not very good for the producer. I suppose

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the man who catches the fish and extracts the liver would not give three cheers for a policy which would prevent his shipping his product across the line, if he wished to do so.
However, the whole matter has been studied by the Minister of Fisheries, and a decision has been made. I am not sure what the decision is, but I shall endeavour to find out and tell the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Fisheries is right behind you.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If the minister's department has no control over tariffs and trade, I am wondering why his predecessor took such an extended tour of South America and empire countries, for the purposes, we believed, to build up empire trade. It seems strange to me that tonight the minister should deny his jurisdiction in these matters, or deny having any influence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to that is quite obvious. The minister did not go to South Africa to make a trade treaty. I might say his trip was very successful, because we are doing an enormous amount of trade with South Africa. Much of that was arranged during the course of that expedition. If my hon. friend wishes to talk about trade, and not trade treaties, I will talk with him as long as he likes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister will not take the position that we cannot properly ask him, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, about the state of treaties on which our trade depends-'the state of treaties between this country and other parts of the commonwealth. I cannot believe the minister would take that position. It does not seem reasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will talk about treaties where trade is flowing, we can give the answers. If he is talking about treaties where no trade is flowing, it is difficult to give the answer, because we are not very much interested in them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps it would be better if you were, probably there would be more trade. But, speaking seriously, surely what the hon. member for Vancouver South asked was quite reasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: His question was a political one. If I knew the answer I would give it to him.


Howard Charles Green: It was not a political
question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now we are coming to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is just back from the hustings, you know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So are you; that would explain it. But this is a direct question to which I think the hon. member is entitled to an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know the answer.


Howard Charles Green: Find it then.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Get it. Surely it is not unreasonable-and I want to ask my own question, too. But I put it to the minister that he is not going to leave it in that way, and that he will get the information-because it is reasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have the answer now. There was a modification with the United Kingdom. With Australia and New Zealand and South Africa there was no modification.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No modification?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister made a statement the other night, which appeared at page 5070 of Hansard, wherein he gave the figures of monthly imports under schedule III. In the items there, I notice a large drop in the first group, covering motorcars, and quite a large percentage drop in film projectors, although that was a relatively small item. Then, with regard to subsequent groups of items, there is very little drop; in fact, in the last group there is an actual increase. What is the policy under this item, particularly with regard to the last two groups where there is little or no reduction. It will be noted that in the fourth group there is an increase from 1947.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member referring to table II or table III?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Table II.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure of the point my hon. friend is trying to make. He will observe that the controls came into force for different items at different dates. In connection with the items in that table, some controls came into effect only on April 1, 1948. That is group 4. Is that the one the hon. member is referring to?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason there is very little effect is that during the period covered by the table the controls were not in force.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Except for the month of April. I see the minister's point. With regard to the third group, the controls came into effect in March. Does the minister expect that there will be in these items anything like the reduction there has been in the first group, or are these items where his policy will be to allow the situation to run along pretty well as it is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is not the same potential for saving as there- is in the first group. Those items are not made in the same volume, but the same policies will apply and I think there will be the same proportion of savings.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With regard to fabricated steel and so on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is in a little different position. This is a deficit country as far as steel is concerned. We manufacture about 3,000,000 tons, but we have to import 1,000,000 tons a year and Canadian industry depends upon that importation very heavily. For instance, our motor industry could not operate at all without a good deal of imported sheet. We just have not the capacity to make it here. There is hardly a heavy industry in the country that does not depend to some extent on imported steel. As far as the construction industry is concerned, all the larger structural shapes are imported.
We have hesitated to apply controls to these steel items because of a fear of retaliation, speaking frankly. It would take some persuasion to have the steel mills give us the sheet we require, because they would take the position, "If you do not want structural, you cannot get sheet." Therefore, we have not applied controls to those items for that reason.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much would that be effective if our construction turned from large factory construction and such to small dwellings? Would that affect our import requirements of steel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would use less structural steel, because there is nothing that I would call structural steel in a house. However, there is a great deal of structural steel used in a hydroelectric plant and in other types of construction that contribute directly to the economic strength of this country. My hon. friend knows we are short of hydroelectric power, and hydroelectric plants have the highest priorities.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, before the war our trading situation depended upon what was called the Atlantic triangle; that is, trade between the United States, Great Britain and Canada was pretty well balanced out. Is

it thought that this position will again prevail or must we plan on the inability to re-establish that position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The triangle is working now up to a degree. The breakdown in the triangle is due to the United Kingdom not being in a position to ship goods in the volume they did formerly. It is working as far as it can work. One of the principal purposes of the European recovery program is to build up the productive strength of Britain to the point where the triangle can work fully. It is not working fully at this time; it is working to a small extent and a little better each month, I am happy to say. There is nothing much we can do about it except to try to make it work.


Howard Charles Green: Is it believed that the plan will work again fully in the course of time, or must we provide some new plan for our Canadian trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to say. We sincerely hope it will, and all our efforts are being directed toward the restoring of the triangle in full. I will not venture to predict whether we can do it, and I do not think anyone else would. Our trade figures are better each month and Britain's position is improving _ each month, but the operation of the triangle depends upon the ability of Britain to export more than they import, and today they are importing far more than they are exporting.


Howard Charles Green: Our plan is based on the eventual return of the triangle?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are trying to develop multilateral trade. We trade where we can trade, and we shall always be in that position. But we are doing all we can to bulid up the economic strength of Britain so that the triangle can work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is Britain getting her imports from Canada on the quota basis today as she did a year or so ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend referring to token imports?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been no change.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does your department have something to say in regard to how they shall work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is correct. Of course we do not decide what the token imports will be. We negotiate with Britain to get a list of token imports, and after that we have something to say. We issue the certificates, but more or less as agents for the United Kingdom.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You select the company or the firm that ships the goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The firms make their sales in the United Kingdom, but we issue the export permits more or less as the United Kingdom asks us to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What are the conditions underlying imports from Britain? Is it their capacity to manufacture goods, or is it price and tariff conditions here? We did make a special tariff adjustment to facilitate the import of certain rayon goods. Will the minister say what the limiting factor is, because the figures are still disappointing, or at any rate they are quite small.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A larger proportion of Britain's over-all exports are coming to Canada each month than previously, but there is some difficulty about price. Some goods are over-priced. We have done our best to correct that situation; we have removed the dump against certain British goods and are doing all we can to help Britain sell goods here at prices that our people are willing to pay. The great difficulty is that Britain has not the goods to ship in the volume we would like to receive.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I met a British industrialist a few days ago, and I got the impression from him that it was partly a question of more favourable selling conditions elsewhere. I suppose that that is always relatively true. Is there a definite advantage to the British to sell in sterling countries as against us? Are they more in balance? As we turn, as I suppose we shall to some extent, to a buyers' market and not a sellers' market, will the difficulty of their selling goods increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I always understood that Britain had a full-out campaign to exchange goods for dollars. I think at the moment the pressure is 'behind the export of goods to dollar countries. It is easier for Britain to trade with sterling countries because they use a common currency.


Angus MacInnis: Are not Britain's trade difficulties with Canada twofold? The main difficulty is, I think, her shortage of goods that Canada wants. If she can increase her production of the kind of goods that Canada will buy she can increase her trade with Canada greatly if Canada will buy those goods, but unless we are willing to buy them there is not much prospect of a great increase in her trade with us.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Under which minister does the issuing of permits under schedule 1 come? Is it the Minister of Trade and 5849-344J
Commerce, the Minister of Finance or some other minister? If it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would ask him whether permits have been issued for the importation of any of these articles in schedule 1 from Great Britain. I know that sweet biscuits are coming in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Finance administers schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the act, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce administers schedule 3. I have no knowledge of what has come in under schedule 1.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It surely comes within the minister's purview to have something to do with the promotion of trade, and surely he has something to do with the endeavour to make Canada self-sufficient, particularly in regard to products which we ordinarily purchase from the United States. But I find from the trade returns that in the first three months of 1947 Canada imported muskrat skins from the United States to the value of $1,783,000, and in the first three months of 1948', $2,824,000 worth, or an increase of over $1,000,000 worth. Under the embargo measure, no fresh lettuce is coming in this year, but in the first three months of last year we imported $993,000 worth from the United States. Of rabbit skins, undressed, we imported $153,000 in the first three months of 1947, and $781,450 in the first three months of 1948. Cannot we raise muskrats in Canada? Will rabbits not breed in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fur trade is complicated. Fur auctions are held in St. Louis, and many of our furs are bought there. Rabbit skins practically all come from Australia, but they come to Canada through the United States. We are not producers of rabbit skins, but we are producers of the most expensive fur-such as fox and beaver. On balance, we are heavy exporters of skins, and if we were to take measures to exclude small imports from other countries it might have a detrimental effect on our export trade.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Can we not encourage the breeding of muskrats in this country? Are any United States funds involved in purchasing these rabbit skins from Australia which come in through the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These international currencies move around. I presume the Americans get some little rake-off on the skins as they pass through the United States. We buy our Australian rabbit skins from the market in St. Louis, I am told. I presume that the Australians get United States dollars from the United States and send them over to us to
Supply-Trade and Commerce

buy lumber. I could not say that the Americans do not get some dollars out of that transaction.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understand that there is a fur auction in Montreal. The minister is interested in developing trade, particularly with the other parts of the commonwealth. Why is something not done by way of getting these Australian rabbit skins shipped direct to Canada, without having to go through the United States, where a certain amount of commission must be paid?


Mr. QUELCH:: The minister knows that one of our troubles in getting goods from Britain is the high price of those goods. The U.S.A. World- News Report points out that that is one of the main difficulties. They say that British textiles are piling up on the shelves in Britain, because they cannot be sold on account of their high prices. You could buy English shirts in Ottawa in 1939 for $3, and a year ago you could buy them for $6.50, but last fall they cost $9. The minister mentioned that we have eliminated the tariff to help Britain. I went downtown this week expecting to find some slight reduction, but I iound that English shirts bad gone up fifty [DOT]cents to $9.50. Why should the price of these articles go up when we have eliminated the tariff? Has the price level of British goods gone up recently, or are these prices due to .action on the part of retailers in this country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to say. If my hon. friend is shocked by those prices I can tell him that I bought some shirts the last time I was in Britain and I was shocked to find that the bill came to $20 per shirt. You can buy British shirts cheaper in Canada than in Britain. I cannot say whether the prices are going up or not. Our dealers in British goods are anxious to reintroduce these goods and their mark-up should be very modest. It is difficult to say, without investigating the particular commodity.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is nearly eleven o'clock and, when we resume, I should like the minister to give us a statement on the total credits we have given to date to facilitate our trade. Just where do we stand at the moment?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cleaver.

Agar Rodney Adamson: May I ask the Minister of Finance when he proposes to bring in the income tax bill for discussion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The one that is being considered by the banking and commerce committee? I hope early next week.


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we
shall take up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister, concerning the increase in salary of the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island, and we hope we shall pass the resolution and the bill in its different stages. The bill is exactly the same as the resolution. It is to increase the salary from $7,000 to $8,000. Then we shall consider amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 228 and Bill No. 300; then take up Bill No. 349, to amend the Diplomatic Service Superannuation Act. Then we shall go into supply, taking the estimates of trade and commerce, reconstruction, veterans affairs, external affairs, labour, national revenue, public works. I cannot indicate in what order we shall take them up.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 18, 1948